Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Air Mails

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are taken to ensure that prospective changes in the air mail service affecting the rate of postal deliveries to and from men in His Majesty's Forces are properly advised to the troops beforehand.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Changes affecting mails to and from the Forces are communicated to the troops at once by means of orders, Forces' broadcast, Forces' newspapers, or any other available method.

Mr. David Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that although the mail plane arrived at Salonica on 23rd November last, the mails had been left behind; and whether he can state the reason for the non-delivery of the mails on this date;
(2) whether he is aware that the mail is only delivered to the troops stationed at Salonica on three days of each week; that this is causing inconvenience to the men stationed there; and whether he will take steps to have the mail delivered more frequently.

Mr. Shinwell: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach) last week, I am making inquiries into the delivery of mail to troops at Salonica, and I will write to my hon. Friend when these inquiries are complete.

Mr. Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the date in question the mail was alleged to have been left behind because of the arrival of a general who had so much baggage which had to be accommodated? Will he give an undertaking that in future a general's baggage shall not have priority over the mail of the other ranks?

Mr. Shinwell: If the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend, they should have been put into the Question.

War Graves (Photographs)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War when the long-promised photographs of the graves of those killed abroad during the war will be given to the next of kin.

Mr. Shinwell: It is my Department's policy to provide the next of kin with a photograph of the deceased's final resting place, which is often not the same place as where the body was originally buried. Many thousands of graves all over the world have had to be concentrated into special British military cemeteries before the photographs could be taken, and this has naturally delayed the completion of the programme. A very considerable number of photographs has already been despatched to the next of kin, and an intensive effort is being made to complete the work at the earliest possible moment. This applies especially to Germany, France and the Low Countries.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people are getting very anxious about these photographs, and will he do as he says and speed up their delivery as much as he can?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly. I understand that about 100,000 photographs have already been despatched, and we are expediting the work as rapidly as possible.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any information is given to the next of kin about the graves, apart from photographs? Is any information given about disinterring and reinterring, and about the position of the graves?

Mr. Shinwell: I had a talk with members of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and I understand that information is furnished to the next of kin so far


as is practicable, but it may be that the information is inadequate. The fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised the matter will perhaps help.

Quarters (Living Conditions)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take in order to remove the serious hardships which members of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment are at present experiencing and in particular the lack of fuel and ban on space heating of the sleeping quarters of these men who have only recently returned from India.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the complaints by men of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Leicestershire Regiment, recently returned from India, and now stationed at Long Marston, near Stratford-on-Avon, regarding their present living conditions; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: As I indicated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) last week; owing to the necessity to economise fuel the amount of heating allowed in Army quarters has unfortunately had to be severely restricted. As regards the particular unit referred to the position has now been improved by repairs to the living accommodation and a partial relaxation of the ban on heating of sleeping accommodation.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the conditions in this camp, and that it has been described as a quagmire during the winter? Is he also aware that men who have come from India and who have been subjected to the living conditions at the camp have fainted; and will he do all he can to get the conditions put right?

Mr. Shinwell: The particulars which I have in my possession are that at a particular parade three men fell out owing to the cold; I am not aware that they actually fainted. The ban on the heating of the sleeping accommodation has been relaxed to provide for heating for at least 20 hours per week.

Mr. Nutting: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was necessary, before action was taken in this matter, for two Parliamentary Questions to be

put by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and myself? Why has all this buck-passing been going on between the right hon. Gentleman's late Ministry and his present Ministry?

Mr. Shinwell: There was no buck-passing that I know of. The fact is that several weeks ago, as a result of my investigations in a particular Command, I directed attention to the paucity of heating of the sleeping accommodation, and they have endeavoured to put the matter right. We have, of course, to economise in the matter of fuel; but I am doing the best I can.

Christmas Leave

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the 9th intake, 29th Training Regiment, R.A.C., stationed at Barford Camp, Barnard Castle, have been told that they will not get any Christmas or New Year leave; and if he will see that they are given the leave promised to all trainees.

Mr. Shinwell: Leave is granted at Christmas to as many men as possible, whether trained or trainees, but naturally, a proportion have to be retained for essential administrative duties. The 9th intake at the 59th Training Regiment, R.A.C., have been detailed to remain in barracks at Christmas as part of the detachment required for such duties. All the members of this intake have recently been Given a week's leave and will be due for further leave when their course ends in February.

Mr. Lipson: Was there not an order issued by the War Office that all trainees were to have Christmas or New Year off, and if this leave is refused at this time, will it not have a very bad effect on recruiting for the Army? Will not my right hon. Friend see that these men get leave at Christmas or New Year?

Mr. Shinwell: No official promise was made about Christmas or the New Year. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member, and I have issued certain directions. In so far as it is possible to carry them out, they will be carried out.

Brigade of Guards (Uniforms)

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to compensate the W.Os.,


N.C.Os. and guardsmen of the Brigade of Guards for the tunics and blue trousers which were their own property and which were handed into store on the outbreak of war in 1939; and on what basis the compensation will be made.

Mr. Shinwell: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Requisitioned Houses, Merton

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) when it is hoped to place a tenant in the vacant property belonging to the War Office, known as No. 188, Dorset Road, Merton, S.W.19;
(2) what steps have been taken to make War Office property known as 186, Dorset Road, Merton, S.W.19, fit for habitation; and when these steps were first taken;
(3) if he will make Nos. 186 and 188, Dorset Road, Merton, S.W.19, available for use by the local authority as soon as his Department are satisfied that they are unable to place tenants in these properties.

Mr. Shinwell: Both these houses are required for occupation by military tenants and will not therefore be available for use by the local authority. No. 188 is already occupied by a warrant officer and his family, and No. 186 will be occupied as soon as it has been repaired.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that these buildings should remain empty when there is such a need for housing accommodation?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, it would be unfortunate if they were left empty for any period of time, but so far as I know that is not the case.

Manpower Economy (Committee's Report)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give a summary of the recommendations of the interim report of the Manpower Economy Committee; which of these he proposes adopting; and what saving in manpower is anticipated.

Mr. Shinwell: As I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend last week,

this report is being considered. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence indicated recently, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) on 12th November that he would consider making further information available on the work of this Committee and the corresponding committees dealing with the other two Services. I must ask my hon. Friend to await this information.

Mr. Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say why he is not prepared to give this information to the House, and can he further say whether he has been impressed with the far-reaching character of the recommendations?

Mr. Shinwell: The reason I cannot give further details on the recommendations is because the report of the Committee is now being considered.

War Office (Staff and Buildings)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what were the numbers of officers and other personnel employed in the War Office in August, 1939; what are the corresponding numbers now; and what is the number of additional houses, apart from the War Office building in Whitehall, that are now used for the accommodation of the War Office staff.

Mr. Shinwell: Information as to the strengths of War Office headquarters branches in August, 1939, is not readily available. The total strength, military and civilian, in April, 1939, was approximately 3,700. The corresponding figure at 1st October, 1947, was 10,600. In April, 1939, 13 buildings and blocks of houses other than the main War Office building were occupied. At the present time 28 such buildings and blocks of houses are occupied. I would point out, however, that this comparison is of little real value as the buildings concerned range from large blocks of offices to quite small houses.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact, whatever the comparison, that the amount of accommodation occupied is very much larger than it was in 1939 and that the strength of the War Office is very much larger also, and can the right hon. Gentleman give any good reason why, after two years of peace, there should be such a disproportionate increase in the War Office staff and the accommodation occupied?

Mr. Scollan: Is not conscription the reason?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the amount of accommodation now used is very much greater than it was before the war, but the need is greater.

Soldiers' Families (Hostel Charges)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War why the rates in hostels for the wives of serving soldiers are the same for all ranks; and if he is aware that it is unreasonable to expect a woman with three children, receiving £3 19s. 6d., who is expected to pay £3 4s. a week, to live on 15s. 6d. for all incidental expenses.

Mr. Shinwell: The rates charged are the same for all ranks because the accommodation and food provided is the same. Families of men on the lowest rates of pay are, however, safeguarded by a provision that after paying the requisite charges the remaining family income shall not be less than 25s. a week. The charge of £3 4s. a week for full board and lodging for a woman and three children includes service, fuel and light. I am, however, looking further into this. As regards the particular case referred to in the last part of the Question, I do not know whether or not the husband is making a reasonable allotment from his pay, but I am perfectly willing to have inquiries made into this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Teeling: If the soldier were not making a reasonable allotment, what would then be the position with regard to the balance of money from the woman?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that is beyond my power. The soldier is expected to make a reasonable allotment, and in the measure in which he does, obviously the woman and her family are better off.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer tend to show that the present pay rates are inadequate?

Soldier's Wife (Visit to M.P.)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War why Mrs. D. M. Wright, of 5, Married Quarters, Preston Barracks,

Brighton, after visiting the hon. Member for Brighton in his office at a time advertised that he will see any constituent, was visited by the R.S.M. and the adjutant and informed, on the C.O.'s instructions, that she had committed an offence in visiting the local Member of Parliament; whether he is aware that she was questioned as to what she had seen him about; how was it known that she had been to see him; and by what authority has the C.O. issued instructions that nobody living in married quarters may consult their Member of Parliament or visit the local secretary of S.S.A.F.A. to seek advice concerning the present conditions in Preston Barracks.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that Mrs. Wright was questioned by the adjutant and the regimental sergeant major concerning her visit to the hon. Member, on the instructions of the garrison commander, who was under the entirely mistaken impression that he was entitled to be informed before the wife of a soldier placed a complaint before a Member of Parliament. This, of course, is not so, and I should like to tale this opportunity of expressing regret for the action which was taken in this case. I am not aware that instructions have been issued to the effect suggested in the last part of the Question, although a letter was addressed by the garrison commander to all married families impressing upon them the fact that he could probably assist them in many queries which might otherwise go to S.S.A.F.A. direct and that it was desirable for him to be approached in the first instance.

Mr. Teeling: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to make quite certain that there will be no victimisation of this woman or any other woman at that centre, and, furthermore, would he be kind enough to point out that the S.S.A.F.A. actually receives a grant from the War Office to assist similar cases and state whether, in his opinion, the S.S.A.F.A. is doing very good work which ought to be encouraged?

Mr. Shinwell: By all means; this association has always done valuable work since its inception. But I am distressed about this case, and appropriate action is to be taken.

Palestine (Postings)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men with under four months' service are being posted to Palestine; and whether he has authorised this.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any specific instances of men with less than four months' service being posted to Palestine, and this would not normally occur under existing practice, although it is possible that it has happened exceptionally in a few cases. As I indicated in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) on 2nd December, in view of the decision to evacuate Palestine the rules for postings to that theatre are under review.

Mr. Low: If I bring a particular case to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, will he see that a man with less than four months' service is not sent to Palestine?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly, Sir.

Officer Cadets (Service Dress)

Captain Field: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his regulations now make it essential for an officer cadet in the Army to be in possession of Service dress when commissioned.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

Captain Field: Will my right hon. Friend bring his answer to the notice of officers commanding O.C.T.Us., particularly the R.A.S.C. O.C.T.U. at Buller Barracks, Aldershot, where they insist on cadets passing out possessing a Service dress?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that that is a War Office instruction.

Accommodation, Aden

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any accommodation for British troops is available in the Crater at Aden; and whether he now proposes to arrange for any units to be stationed there.

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am aware, there is no accommodation suitable for British troops in the area referred to. The situation at Aden is being kept under constant review by the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces, who will make whatever dispositions are necessary.

Dr. Segal: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel reasonably assured that we have forces in Aden adequately disposed to cope with any further disturbances?

Mr. Shinwell: I would not care to answer that question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever may be the position at the Crater, there are a number of "Craters" in Scotland which do not want the Army at all?

Courts Martial Committee (Meetings)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War when the Courts Martial Committee last met.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that the Committee last examined witnesses on 11th September, but that since then there have been frequent meetings of members of a sub-committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of this Committee publishing its report in the near future?

Mr. Shinwell: I should think so.

Vessels

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for War how many vessels are borne on the Vote of the Army; and what is the cost of their maintenance.

Mr. Shinwell: It would not be in accordance with practice to disclose this information.

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for War how many vessels on the Army Vote are to proceed to Malta; and what will be the cost of their maintenance.

Mr. Shinwell: None, Sir, though some vessels may call at Malta on their way to the Middle East either for the crew to be inoculated against cholera or to discharge any cargo for Malta which happens to be available for shipment when they sail from England. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for War how many vessels on the Army Vote have been converted; how many are in the process of conversion; and what is the total cost.

Mr. Shinwell: Fifty-two such vessels have been converted since the end of the war and three are in process of conversion. Owing to the special financial arrangements in force up to 31st March, 1947, the greater part of the cost of the conversion remained a charge against Navy Funds: but it is estimated that the cost of conversion work carried out after 31st March, 1947, will be £240,000.

African Troops (Corporal Punishment)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether discipline has or has not deteriorated among African colonial troops since corporal punishment has been abolished; and what punishments are inflicted for offences, that formerly would have involved corporal punishment.

Mr. Shinwell: I have called for a report on this matter from the military authorities overseas and I will write to my hon. Friend when it has been received.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that include the latter part of the Question as well as the first part?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly, Sir.

Far East Operations (Despatches)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War the date on which the despatches relating to the loss of Singapore and the Malay Peninsula will be published.

Mr. Shinwell: I expect that the despatches relating to the operations in the Far East during the earlier part of the war will start being published about the middle of January. Those relating to the loss of Singapore and the Malay Peninsula should reach their turn for publication within the following four or five weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Civilian Clothes

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now allow prisoners of war to wear civilian clothes where these are available to them and when they are off duty.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. Until these men are released to civilian status or are dis-

charged in Germany on repatriation they are military prisoners of war and must wear uniform for reasons of discipline and control.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend at least see that more suits without patches are made available to these men, as they feel it most invidious to have to go around the countryside wearing these beastly patches?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that patches are not peculiar to German prisoners of war.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War why a recent order was made forbidding P.O.W's. to wear any civilian ties, collars, or shirts they might possess; and whether, owing to their desire to look as tidy as possible, he will cancel the instructions issued.

Mr. Shinwell: This order was issued to ensure uniformity among prisoners of war, who are subject to military discipline. I see no reason to cancel it.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this small concession would increase the men's self-respect and improve their morale? Will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Shinwell: This is a matter of discipline, and we cannot have them appearing in all kinds of uniform.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: How is it that these men were allowed to wear these articles up till quite recently, and that suddenly a ban was put on them, without any real explanation? Why was the ban imposed? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Shinwell: I certainly cannot answer it, because I am not aware of it.

Repatriation

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for the completion of repatriation from the Middle East of prisoners of war by the same date as repatriation of prisoners of war from this country, namely, 31st August, 1948.

Mr. Shinwell: This suggestion is being considered, but I am not yet in a position to give any indication whether it will be practicable.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of these men were captured long before the majority of the men detained in this country, and will he also give an assurance that the evacuation from Palestine will not lead to further delay in repatriation from the Middle East?

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to see the question about Palestine on the Order Paper.

Mr. Sorensen: Have these prisoners of war in the Middle East the same amenities and facilities as are enjoyed by their fellow prisoners in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that they are without amenities.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause German prisoners of war in this country to be informed what groups will be repatriated by Christmas; and what is the average monthly number of these prisoners who are repatriated on compassionate and other grounds outside their repatriation group.

Mr. Shinwell: All prisoners of war were informed in November of the estimated repatriation dates of each group up till May, 1948. The average number repatriated monthly outside their groups for the last three months has been approximately 4,800.

Mr. Sorensen: Is that number increasing on the average?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. As I indicated in my previous reply, there is some increase.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does that number include men repatriated from the Middle East on compassionate grounds?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I can see, this Question does not apply to the Middle East.

Entertainments (Performers)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in regard to his refusal to allow prisoners of war to take part in concerts and other entertainments where an admission charge is made and the proceeds are for some charitable, religious or relief objective, he will distinguish between those cases in which, on the one hand, paid professionals would be employed and, on the other, unpaid amateurs.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be very difficult to decide whether professionals or amateurs would have been employed at an entertainment if prisoners of war had not been available. I regret, therefore, that his suggestion is not practicable.

Mr. Lipson: Could not the test be whether those taking part in the concert are paid or not?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, one could apply several tests. I do not think a test has anything to do with it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Having regard to the fact that it is easy to distinguish between those who are paid and those who are not paid, Will not my right hon. Friend look at this matter again, because in country districts it is particularly hard on charitable organisations to inflict this penalty on them?

Mr. Shinwell: I will look into it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Cannot those responsible for getting up entertainments for charitable purposes certify that those taking part are, or are not, paid?

Mr. Shinwell: I would like to see that question on the Order Paper.

Detained Men

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to reduce the number of German prisoners in this country who are regarded as frozen men; and what steps are taken to inform prisoners of war of the offence or reason for which they are frozen and to inform them of the name of the country which requires their detention.

Mr. Shinwell: Under revised rules which came into force yesterday the number of prisoners of war detained in this country beyond the date on which they would normally become eligible for repatriation will be reduced from approximately 2,500 to approximately 700. All of these men will be informed of the reason for their detention and, where applicable, of the country on whose behalf they are detained.

Commander Maitland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it was entirely contrary to our English sense of justice that these men were not previously informed why they were being kept in this


country, and will he see in future that men who are kept behind, or frozen, are informed of the reasons they are detained?

Mr. Shinwell: I have answered that question in my original reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Clothing and Equipment

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many Territorial units are short of clothing and equipment; and, in view of the large surpluses left over from the war, if he will see that the Territorial Army is fully equipped before disposing of these surpluses.

Mr. Shinwell: A complete set of personal clothing and equipment is issued to Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations for each recruit and except for a temporary shortage of battledress in certain smaller sizes there has been no difficulty in meeting the demands of Associations. Owing to the very heavy strain which is imposed on the Army's repair capacity there is a temporary shortage of certain technical stores in a fully serviceable condition, particularly some kinds of anti-aircraft equipment. There is also a shortage of certain vehicles. Repairable equipments and vehicles of the types in short supply are being overhauled on a high priority to meet the outstanding demands of the Territorial Army. The needs of the Territorial Army are taken into consideration before any equipment is declared surplus.

Sir W. Smithers: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect an enthusiastic response to the recruitment campaign for the Territorial Army if it is not given the fullest encouragement by way of receiving the equipment and clothing it desires? If I send him some special cases, will he look into them?

Mr. Shinwell: I shall be glad to have any information which the hon. Gentleman has in his possession, but I am not aware of any lack of enthusiasm in the Territorial Army.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Will my right hon. Friend see that the Territorial Army is not called upon to fight the next war with the left off equipment of the last war?

Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention to buildings and accommodation at the present time?

Mr. Shinwell: We are giving a great deal of attention to the matter of buildings, but it is not an easy problem to solve.

Altcar Rifle Range (Clinker Ashes)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War for what period have clinker ashes been delivered to Altcar Rifle Range, Hightown, Lancashire, on behalf of the Territorial Association, by a contractor William Rainford, of White-hedge Farm, Hightown; what quantity has been delivered; and what was the price agreed to be paid.

Mr. Shinwell: Clinker ashes have been delivered by this contractor at the range mentioned since 4th December. Some twelve loads have been delivered. No payment will be made.

Supplementary Bounty

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the supplementary bounty of £1 10s. for additional voluntary training and £1 10s. for certified efficiency will be paid to N.C.O's. and men of the Territorial Army who enlisted before 1st August, 1947, and who have become qualified.

Mr. Shinwell: Non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army who enlisted before 1st August, 1947, and who have carried out the obligatory training required, including attendance at camp, will be paid the supplementary bounty of 30s. if certified by the commanding officer as efficient and up to a maximum of 30s. for additional voluntary training.

Colonel Ropner: What is the position when no camp is held? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few days before this Question appeared on the Order Paper, the paymasters informed the unit commanders that this additional bounty would not be paid, and in view of that, will he place on the paymasters the responsibility for bringing the matter to the notice of unit commanders?

Mr. Shinwell: If it should be the case as perhaps it may be, that camps could not be arranged, I will look into the point, for it is a point of substance.

Colonel Ropner: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the paymasters to inform unit commanders that there has been a change in the last few days with regard to instructions for paying additional bounty.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of it, but note will be taken of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Historic Buildings (Lists)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he expects to publish any of the lists of buildings of historic or architectural interest to be protected under Sections 42 and 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): One statutory list has been sent to the local authority for deposit and will be published as soon as possible. I hope that two more will be sent before Christmas. A large number of provisional lists have been sent to local authorities for the addition of necessary details and when these are available the Statutory lists will be sent for deposit.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister say to what areas this one list applies, and whether it was selected because there are very few such buildings there; and will he also say when he hopes to discharge this duty, put upon him more than three years ago, for the whole country?

Mr. Silkin: The one authority is Nuneaton. There is an average number of buildings there. It was not selected because of the small number. I cannot give a date, but it will take some time before the task is completed. The surveys have now been made.

Mr. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it possible for recognised architectural societies interested in preserving buildings to see this list either at his office or elsewhere?

Mr. Silkin: They can see it on request at the offices of the local authority, and we shall certainly be glad to produce those lists to societies of that kind.

Footpaths

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many county councils have sign-posted public footpaths and rights of way similar to those sign-posted by the Essex County Council; and what steps he has taken to require county councils to perform this service.

Mr. Silkin: I have no precise information in regard to the first part of the Question. The matter referred to in the second part is under consideration in connection with the Report of the Special Committee on Footpaths and Access to the Countryside.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister see that some kind of recommendation to the various county councils is given before the Spring and Summer, in view of the very fine service which the Essex County Council has rendered to walkers and ramblers in the countryside, and the fact that a similar service has not been rendered in other parts of the country?

Mr. Silkin: It is very difficult indeed at this time to give directions or instructions to local authorities with which they cannot comply in view of the shortage of labour and material.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely a recommendation could be made? Many of these authorities are ignoring the possibilities

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the Essex type of signpost would be much improved if it told us where the footpath goes, as well as the fact that there is a footpath?

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many beautiful footpaths have fallen into desuetude as a result of this kind of negligence, that they are not even marked on the maps, and that, even if we cannot keep them in any kind of order, a recommendation, or the kindly sort of letter he is in the habit of sending, would be a great advantage?

Mr. Silkin: I am well aware of those facts, and it is for that reason the Committee was set up.

Mr. Vane: Should not the right hon. Gentleman press the Service Departments to release a great many footpaths which they are now closing, rather than encourage local authorities to signpost them?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, recognising the shortage of manpower, ramblers' associations and other voluntary organisations interested in this matter would co-operate with local authorities if they were given a lead, and would undertake much of the work that is required?

Mr. Silkin: I am very glad to hear that, and no doubt the local authorities will note it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Local Staffs (Wales)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in the impending interviews of candidates for posts on the local staffs of his Ministry, the special needs of Welsh-speaking areas in Wales will be adequately considered.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Yes, Sir; the fullest consideration will be given to the special needs of Welsh-speaking areas in Wales. In the recruitment to my Ministry which is now going on, the separate selection board which sits at Cardiff notes the names of successful candidates who speak Welsh, and the Controller in charge of National Insurance business in Wales posts them as far as possible to offices where a knowledge of the Welsh language is necessary or desirable.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend, as well as giving due consideration to these Welsh-speaking areas, make perfectly sure that Welsh is not made obligatory upon all the people who can work in the Welsh department?

Mr. Griffiths: Certainly, Sir. I know there are English-speaking people as well.

Candidates (Interviews)

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Minister of National Insurance when his Department proposes to commence interviewing candidates for posts on the local staffs of his Ministry; and whether these interviews will be conducted regionally or entirely in London.

Mr. J. Griffiths: These interviews, which are conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, began last August. Nearly all the candidates who were wholly or mainly engaged on National Health Insurance

work have now been interviewed, and in other classes of cases candidates will be interviewed in the near future. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which I set up to advise me, the interviewing and selecting of candidates for established posts in the Ministry is in the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners. The great majority of the applicants are interviewed in suitable regional or local centres but those who appear to be qualified for certain senior posts are interviewed by a special board in London.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Ex-Officers

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-officers of over 40 years of age of whom his Department has particulars and for whom employment has not yet been found; and the number of such officers placed in employment by his Department during the last 12 months.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Statistics of this particular age-group are not available. Of the 5,918 unemployed ex-officers who were seeking employment through the Appointments Department on 10th November last, 2,381 or 40 per cent. were over 45 years of age. During the 12 months ended 10th November, 6,663 ex-officers of all ages were placed in employment.

Unemployment, Birmingham

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the figures for unemployment in Birmingham as recorded on 1st December in each of the years of 1932, 1938, and 1947, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: The numbers of insured workers registered as unemployed at the dates nearest to those in question were 50,505 at 21st November, 1932, 30,904 at 14th November, 1938, and 2,870 at 10th November, 1947.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Will the Minister give us the figures of unemployed in Birmingham at the end of January this year?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, yes.

TRADE UNIONS (GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister if he will, as requested, see a deputation from the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, including the Union of Railway Signalmen, to discuss the desirability of trade unions outside the T.U.C. being taken into consultation in furthering plans for national recovery.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to add to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) on 4th December.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not unwise in these days to make any body of men feel that their co-operation is not needed because they prefer to keep clear of political affiliations?

Mr. Morrison: The co-operation of all good citizens is needed and should be forthcoming, but it would lead to great inconvenience and difficulty if we were to deal with two collective trade union organisations. This body itself claims only a membership of about 100,000, and there is no question of political affiliation in it, because the Trades Union Congress is not affiliated to any political party.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Federation of Independent Trade Unions is so called because it consists of organisations which are not really trade unions and are not at all independent?

Sir William Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is prepared to see not only the National Union of Manufacturers but the Federation of British Industries as well? Both these bodies represent different sections of the productive world. Would he not consider that analogy as one worth following?

Mr. Morrison: This analogy is not a perfect one at all, and in any case the hon. Gentleman is putting the argument the wrong way round.

Mr. D. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a case of a body which claims to be entirely non-political seeking

to influence the political head of the State?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the constitution of the T.U.C. and its standing orders are such that a number of bona fide trade unions cannot affiliate with it? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does he not realise that the National Union of Teachers and N.A.L.G.O. and other trade unions are not affiliated? Is there any reason why the T.U.C., however excellent a body, should be the only body to be recognised?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware that this so-called independent body represents the teachers——

Mr. H. Strauss: I did not say it did.

Mr. Morrison: Then that does not help the point. The teachers are dealt with by the Minister of Education and are recognised; N.A.L.G.O. is recognised by the Ministry of Health. It would lead to a chaotic situation if the great Trades Union Congress, representative of organised labour, with many millions of membership, were to be negotiated with almost side by side with this rather small body.

STAR AND MEDAL RIBBONS (NEXT-OF-KIN)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to issue medal ribbons to next-of-kin of those who lost their lives in the war.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which he gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) on nth November last.

Mr. G. Williams: If that answer was that they had not yet been issued, as in the case of many families of which I can tell him, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it a disgrace that in two years they have not yet had this very small token of gratitude issued to them?

Mr. Morrison: We are, of course, exceedingly sorry that the medals have not been issued. It is a problem of production—[HON. MEMBERS: "The ribbons."]—I am on the final point now. In regard to ribbons, I understand that the tradition and recognised


practice is that they are only customarily worn by the persons concerned. That strictly applies to medals, but it is recognised that on Armistice Day, and such other occasions, relatives do wear them.

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS EMPLOYEES (LOCAL ELECTIONS)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Prime Minister whether employees of nationally owned and nationally subsidised public corporations are debarred from offering themselves as candidates at local government elections.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Service Hostels Corporation takes unto itself the right unilaterally to debar its employes, when they think fit, from standing as candidates in municipal elections? If I give my right hon. Friend some evidence, will he look into that?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, but in giving the answer I must confess I was thinking of commercial corporations rather than of a body of that kind. If my hon. Friend gives me particulars, I will look into it.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it in order for the employees of nationalised corporations to be employed for propaganda purposes at by-elections?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put that question down, with evidence, for consideration.

NEW ZEALAND EXHIBITION, LONDON

Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council why the Central Office of Information has distributed a large amount of advertising matter to firms in the London area giving details of an exhibition about New Zealand which, except for Saturday afternoons, is only open to these firms' employees during their normal office hours.

Mr. H. Morrison: Small posters and handbills advertising the "Meet New Zealand" Exhibition have been distributed in limited numbers to schools and

firms in the London district. This material reaches not only the employees of the firms but, through them, their families and friends. The present hours of opening are from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on all weekdays, except Christmas Day, when the exhibition will be closed, and Boxing Day, when it will open at 2 p.m. To some extent the staggering of working hours will make it possible for industrial and office workers to visit the exhibition, and requests have been received from firms to arrange visits for parties of their trainees, within these hours. But, in order to facilitate the attendance of workers, it has now been agreed with the High Commissioner for New Zealand, whose office provides the staff, that the exhibition should be open from 10.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. on weekdays. This extension of hours will be put into effect within two or three days, as soon as the necessary staff arrangements can be made.

Mr. Erroll: Does not the Minister think that it would be possible on several evenings a week to keep the exhibition open until 10 o'clock in the evening, and not just until 7 o'clock?

Mr. Morrison: It is a matter of staffing, for which the New Zealand High Commissioner's office is responsible, and, on the experience of other exhibitions which have been open until a late hour—analogous exhibitions—it does not look as though that would be particularly successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Forged Bank Notes

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extent to which forged money has been discovered entering this country from South Eastern Europe.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): Since the war, some 5,300 forged bank notes to a total face-value of £50,500 are known to have reached the United Kingdom from countries in South Eastern Europe. Practically all these forged notes originated in Germany.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Chancellor able to say whether these notes are reaching this country through diplomatic channels?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give the information as to the routes along which they came. If the hon. Member likes to put down a Question, I will try to answer it.

Dividends (Increase)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the advice not to pay increased dividends was communicated to the brewing industry; and what has been the result;
(2) whether the advice not to pay increased dividends was communicated to the plastics industry; and what has been the result.

Sir S. Cripps: The advice was of general application. I strongly hope that both these and other industries will realise the importance to our economy of restraint in the distribution of dividends.

Production Targets

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the success achieved during the war in the United States by hoisting the Navy flag over factories exceeding their production targets, he will consider some similar method in this country where management and workers exceed their target in order that they may receive the appreciation they deserve.

Sir S. Cripps: The award of pennants, or other marks of recognition, to factories depends upon the existence of agreed production targets for each works. Such targets can be set where all the output goes to a single Government purchaser, but in present conditions in the United Kingdom with factories supplying large numbers of private buyers, the fixing of realistic and practicable targets is a very difficult matter. This question is under consideration, and in the meantime steps are taken in speeches, Press conferences and in the Government fortnightly "Three Minute Report to the Nation," to give public recognition to industries or firms which achieve notable results.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of sterling balances held by residents outside the United Kingdom which has been converted into gold, dollars or other hard currencies since 20th August, 1947; and of this total, how much was converted for benefit of countries outside the sterling area.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member the information in the form he requests. Figures are published from time to time of gross sales of gold, drawings on the U.S. and Canadian Credits and drawings from the International Monetary Fund. Apart from changes in working balances, these measure the net expenditure of gold and dollars from the central reserves of the United Kingdom and the sterling area. It is impossible to give at frequent intervals a more detailed breakdown of our use of dollars.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Chancellor refuses to give this type of information, as he does consistently in this House, how can any hon. Member judge of the financial position of the country, or judge on the White Papers and targets the right hon. and learned Gentleman constantly issues?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think I have constantly refused to give the information. I think this is the first occasion on which I have refused, but I hope the information which is available will be sufficient to enable hon. Members to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries are at present entitled to claim conversion of their current sterling balances into currencies other than dollars; and whether His Majesty's Government have, in all or any of the cases concerned, ensured reciprocity in respect of British holdings of the currencies of the countries concerned.

Sir S. Cripps: If the Question refers to countries outside the scheduled territories, the answer is "None, Sir," although the central banks of certain countries with whom we have monetary agreements are entitled to offset sterling they hold against our holdings of their currencies and vice versa.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor say—which is the purport of this Question—how it affects the scheduled areas?

Sir S. Cripps: I was under the impression that the Question related to territories outside the scheduled territories. So far as the scheduled territories are concerned, they have the right to transferability and convertibility according to the


needs and customs of the case, and also the agreements specifically made with them.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to avoid inflationary pressure and unrequited exports through the expenditure of £1,750 million held by countries with which His Majesty's Government have not yet concluded a funding agreement.

Sir S. Cripps: Action in many forms, including an appeal for economy to the governments of the scheduled territories and trade and payments arrangements with other countries.

British Composers' Works (Russia)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is earned in Russia for British composers by the performance of their works.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Evans: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether any payments have been made from this country to Russia?

Sir S. Cripps: Many payments of different sorts are made.

Mr. Evans: For the performance of music?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid my hon. Friend must put that Question on the Order Paper.

Egypt

Mr. Harrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the present position of Egypt in relation to the sterling currency area; and what direct applications or overtures have been made by that country to re-enter the sterling area.

Sir S. Cripps: Egypt left the sterling area on 14th July, 1947; the answer to the second part of the Question is, "None, Sir."

Ports Customs Examinations

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many passengers passing through the ports of Southamp-

ton, Dover, Harwich and Liverpool, have been interrogated by Customs officers during the last three months; and how many passengers have been completely stripped and searched.

Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the first part of the Question is 749,000, and to the second part, none.

Government Expenditure

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will convene a conference of all heads of Departments, with a view of taking all steps necessary to stop inflation.

Sir S. Cripps: No such conference is required, since all Departments are under constant instruction to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

Sir W. Smithers: What earthly good is it to pass an anti-inflationary Budget, while almost in the same breath giving an increase in miners' wages, which puts up the cost of coal to the consumer by 3s. 6d. a ton?

Mr. Speaker: The Question refers to a conference.

Exchange Control (Remittance to Canada)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that two pound notes were enclosed recently in a letter by an old age pensioner in Newport to her daughter in Canada, who was in urgent need of help at Christmas for her six children; that this money was confiscated by the Customs Authorities, although a letter was also enclosed explaining that it was a free gift for the children; and whether he will authorise its repayment to the grandmother concerned or allow it to be sent for the benefit of the children in Canada.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 9th December. I could not agree to the notes being sent on to Canada, but they are being returned to the sender.

Mr. P. Freeman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this matter has aroused such sympathy in Canada that the Deputy Minister of the Treasury in Ontario has offered to make good the impecuniosity of this country? Will he consider allowing such small amounts to be sent


to relatives under such circumstances, as has been the practice for many years?

Sir S. Cripps: We certainly cannot allow such sums to be sent abroad, although I am delighted to hear of the action of the Canadians.

Mr. Keeling: Is it the custom to return the notes in such circumstances or was an exception made in this case?

Sir S. Cripps: It depends on the circumstances of the case.

Sacramental Wine

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt sacramental wine from the recent increase in the duty on wines.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to do so.

Chilean Bonds (Encashment)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that drawn bonds of the Chilean Nitrate and Iodine Corporation Income Debenture bonds can be tendered in New York for repayment in dollars, he will grant a licence for such bonds to be exported to New York for encashment.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir, so far as the dollar bonds are concerned.

Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—even the worst Minister sometimes gives the right answer—may I ask him if he is aware that he enables bondholders to get about 16 per cent. more by converting them into dollars in New York, and that if he had not done so the Chilean Government would probably have pocketed that profit?

Sir S. Cripps: There will not be any conversion because they are dollar bonds.

Tobacco Duty

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which tobacco manufacturers have given assurances that profits on tobacco stocks arising from increases on duty have been earmarked to cover the loss on any future

reduction in duty; and how much has been so earmarked.

Sir S. Cripps: The manufacturers who gave this assurance were, in addition to Messrs. Carreras, the Imperial Tobacco Co., Ltd., Messrs. Gallaher Ltd., and Messrs. Godfrey Phillips, Ltd. I have no particulars of the amounts earmarked. In any case it would not be in accordance with Revenue practice to divulge confidential details of the affairs of individual companies.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: When particulars of these earnings and profits are published, and my right hon. and learned Friend knows what they are, does he propose to do anything about it?

Sir S. Cripps: I propose to accept the undertaking of the company.

War Damage Value (Payments)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that some of His Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes are charging Income Tax on the capital value of war damage value payments; whether he is aware that this is contrary to the undertakings given when the level of value payments was finally determined; and whether he will issue instructions for this practice to cease.

Sir S. Cripps: War damage value payments do not constitute income for Income Tax purposes. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the cases to which she refers, I will have inquiries made.

Purchase Tax Certificates

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give an estimate of the number of Purchase Tax certificates, under Section 24 (1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, issued by traders each year; and if he will take steps for such certificates to have a validity of five years instead of twelve months.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I have no means of estimating the number of such certificates issued; nor can I agree to extend their period of validity in view of the revenue risks involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Examinations

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in a number of Civil Service examinations candidates have to give written answers and opinions on matters which can be rightly regarded as the subjects of political controversy, including their views on world personalities in politics and as such questions are unreasonable, recognising that the examiners, notwithstanding their desire to be unbiased and apply the same standards of correction to all papers, are bound to be influenced by their own political conceptions, if he will prohibit all questions of this kind for the future.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Civil Service Commissioners assure me that, while they set questions of a general nature on topics of the day, the only purpose of these is to enable candidates to show their intellectual qualities. The Commissioners are satisfied that the judgment of the examiners is not affected in any way by their own or the candidate's political views. I see no ground for interfering with the discretion of the Civil Service Commissioners in the conduct of their examinations.

Mr. Carmichael: Is my right hon. Friend of the opinion that if a person sitting for an, examination was questioned on Signor Mussolini and eulogised his work, he would be examined in an unbiased way and granted full marks?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Civil Service Commissioners assure me that any answer given, supposing that question were asked would be judged on its merits as evidence or otherwise of the intellectual ability of the examinee.

Mr. Drayson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that questions of this sort are very important, as some students even appear to be in doubt as to who is the Prime Minister of this country?

Mr. Tolley: Has my right hon. Friend seen a copy of the questions asked, and is he satisfied about them?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have gone into this matter rather thoroughly at different times. It is quite impossible to judge

the knowledge of a candidate unless certain topical questions are put, and they must sooner or later involve personalities in politics, etc. I am afraid we cannot get away from that.

Approved Societies' Employees

Captain John Crowder: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that employees of approved societies who are selected for employment in his Department are often appointed to posts of a status lower than the one they held in the society; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Employees of approved societies who apply for permanent posts in the Ministry of National Insurance are graded by the Civil Service Commissioners on the recommendation of selection boards appointed by them. The Boards, which include members with experience of approved society work, take into account the status and duties of the employees in the approved society as well as all other relevant factors.

Captain Crowder: Can the Financial Secretary say if the salary is the same in most cases?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I could not, because frequently the post in an approved society which an individual gives up is different from that which he takes up in the Ministry, but where the salary is lower, he has the right to compensation under Section 67 of the National Insurance Act, 1946.

Mr. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that lower salaries are being given in many of these cases, and that there is much delay in granting compensation, which is causing considerable hardship?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Government Departments are short of staff, but if the hon. Member has any case in mind I will be glad to look into it and try to expedite it.

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Civil Service Commission has informed members of approved society staffs who are being taken over by the Ministry of National Insurance that, as a condition of their employment, they must resign any positions they hold


as elected representatives on local authorities and other public bodies; and whether he will give instructions for this condition to be rescinded.

Mr. Asterley Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a district secretary of an approved society, whose name and address have been supplied to him, and who is a member of a county council and a borough council and is a justice of the peace, has been told that if he accepts a post within the Ministry of National Insurance he must resign all those offices; and whether he will amend the regulations so as to permit as many civil servants as possible to take part in public affairs.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is for the head of each Department to decide the conditions on which his staff may take part in local government, subject to the general principle that such activities should not interfere with official duties. My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance desires to allow as great a measure of freedom to his staff in this respect as is consonant with their official position; but I understand that the general rules to be applied in his Department have not yet been settled and are to be discussed on the Departmental Whitley Council. Meanwhile, I understand that the particular case referred to by my hon. Friend, the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Glass Bottles

Mr. Low: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many glass bottles were exported from the United Kingdom by British manufacturers in the first to months of 1947; and whether he is aware that these bottles if they had been sold in the United Kingdom, would have been sold at less than half the price at which similar bottles imported from Belgium have been sold in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): Some 60 million. This quantity, which represents about 2½ per cent. of total home production is sufficient only to enable the manu-

facturers to preserve their goodwill abroad which I consider to be of value. Imported bottles are expensive, but help to ease the present severe shortage.

Mr. Low: Is it not rather odd to insist upon the export of 60 million bottles and to have to import 10 million at much higher prices?

Mr. Belcher: It is not odd at all. I regard it as a perfectly correct commercial practice to enable our manufacturers to maintain their foothold in overseas markets against the time when we shall be able to produce sufficient not only for our own use, but for export.

Surgical Boots

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extreme difficulty which is being experienced in obtaining surgical boots, or footwear according to special requirements; and what special action he is prepared to take inasmuch as some disabled people have been without these articles for several years.

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir; I am very much aware of the difficulties in obtaining surgical boots. The chief causes of the delay are the lack of skilled craftsmen and the world-wide scarcity of the most suitable types of leather. Special assistance has always been given to surgical bootmakers whose work is held up by lack of materials and we are now introducing a further scheme to enable types of leather normally reserved for export to be bought for surgical boots. The Ministry of Labour are operating training schemes and should help to provide some of the skilled manpower which is needed, and there has been some success in finding European volunteer workers for surgical bootmaking.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that regard must be had to the question of price also, and that the price is prohibitive. As has been stated already, a sum of 16 guineas for a pair of boots makes the possibility of a poor person getting them pretty remote.

Mr. Belcher: Yes. Following my hon. Friend's representations, I have instituted an inquiry into the price.

Earthenware Industry (Japan)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is


aware to what extent the china and earthenware industry is being revived and rehabilitated in Japan under General McArthur's direction; what quantities are being exported; and to which countries.

Mr. Belcher: I am informed that the capacity of this industry is nearly as high as before the war, but that the capacity now in use is only one quarter of the prewar figure. Complete figures of quantities exported are not available, but up to 31st August last the chief destinations recorded were the United States, the Netherlands East Indies and, to a less extent, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Mr. Davies: Is regard being paid to trade union conditions and to some of the malpractices which were associated with the manufacture of pottery with which we had to compete before the war, and is my hon. Friend aware that we are already meeting serious competition in Canada?

Mr. Belcher: I am afraid that we have no control over trade union conditions or any other conditions in those countries.

Mr. Scollan: Is any part of this export from Japan to the United States taken as reparations?

Mr. Belcher: I would require notice of that question, but I do not think so.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the Minister inquire whether production is being carried out under labour conditions governed by an International Labour Office Convention? Is it not important that we should know that?

Mr. Belcher: That seems to me to be quite a different question.

Census of Production (Form 144)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in the case of firms who, being unable to provide information required in questions contained on Form 144 issued by his Department in connection with the Partial Census of Production, decline to act on the requirement contained in Part A, paragraph 1 of the form that they should supply an answer based on guesswork by reason of the inconsistency of any such answer with the declaration which requires to be completed on page 2 of the form.

Mr. Belcher: The requirement referred to, which states that "where accurate figures are not available, the best estimates practicable should be given," was a concession which was welcomed by industry generally. Such estimates would not appear to be inconsistent with the declaration on page 2 of the form and I am not aware that any firm has declined to provide estimates on the grounds of any such alleged inconsistency. If the hon. Member knows of a case of peculiar difficulty, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the declaration to which he has referred demands that the form should certify that the information is complete and correct; and how can information, which is simply an estimate in the absence of accurate information, come within that declaration?

Mr. Belcher: It is complete and correct to the best of the firm's ability to provide the information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the firm objects to signing this declaration, will the Parliamentary Secretary take any action against them?

Mr. Belcher: I will have to consider each case on its merits.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on Business for this week?

Mr. H. Morrison: A rearrangement of Business becomes necessary following the Adjournment yesterday as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Earl Baldwin. After the consideration of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill today and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, we shall ask the House to take the two Coast Protection Orders, Biscuits (Charges) Order and the Double Taxation Relief Orders which were to have been taken yesterday.
The Overseas Resources Development Bill which was also down for consideration yesterday will be postponed until after the Recess. The Business announced for the remainder of the week is unchanged.

Mr. Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs proposes to make a statement on the meeting of the Foreign Ministers this week, and, if so, on what day?

Mr. Morrison: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's request and I will take it up. I will discuss it with the Foreign Secretary and convey the wish to him; but I cannot make any decisive statement at the moment.

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a highly technical Measure, in which there is a great deal of legislation by reference. This makes it difficult to follow unless the various Acts to which reference is made are consulted. It has three main objects. The first is to extend the period during which certain powers contained in the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, may be used in relation to land held and works used for military purposes. The second is to increase the compensation payable, by way of rental as well as terminal compensation, for land which has been requisitioned. The third object is to confer powers more convenient than those now available to maintain permanently the long-distance oil pipe line which was created during the war.
With reference to the first object, the powers conferred by the Act of 1945 are due to expire at two different dates. In the case of land held and works used for military purposes, the powers expire on 24th February, 1948. In the case of land held and works used for economic purposes, the powers are due to expire on 10th December, 1952. Therefore, the first object is to equate the two dates by making 10th December, 1952, the operative date for both purposes. Before I come to the reasons why the Government make this proposal, I would like to clear the ground by reminding the House why it is that at present we have two separate limiting dates.
The powers conferred by the Act of 1945 were granted originally for a period of two years after the end of the war period. The end of the war period was later fixed as 24th February, 1946. This meant that the powers conferred by the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act would be continued until 24th February, 1948. Section 5 (5) of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers)


Act of 1945, prescribed that these powers should continue until two years after the expiration of that Act, if it could be certified that the land was held or the works used, for purposes within Section 1 (1) of that Act—broadly, that is, for purposes connected with the economic problems which face the nation during the transitional postwar period. The Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act expires on 10th December, 1950, unless it is extended by Order in Council for a further year. Therefore, two years added to that date bring us to 10th December, 1952. The result of Section 5 (5) of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act is that for the purposes of Section 1 (1) of that Act—that is for economic purposes—the powers do not end until 10th December, 1952; whereas for other purposes—namely, military purposes—they end on 24th February, 1948.
This, at least, is the result which the House undoubtedly thought they were securing when the first Supplies and Services Bill was considered. But there is a strong case for holding, as a matter of strict law, that land requisitioned for military purposes can be retained, in many cases, beyond February of next year under the law as it now stands. This case has been strengthened by the recent extending Act and, if this is right, some of the powers sought by this Bill are unnecessary. But the Government consider, in view of the clear understanding of Parliament in 1945, that it would be wrong to rely on securing what they now want by any legal ingenuity, or any particular reading of the law as it stands. They much prefer to come to the House frankly and to ask for fresh legislation covering the whole of the ground.
It was no accident that the Supplies and Services Act left a shorter period available for the exercise of all these powers on land used for military purposes than on land used for economic purposes. At that time it was firmly expected in all quarters of the House that the permanent requirements of the Forces would be settled and the dismantling of war works and rehabilitation of land completed by early next year. This expectation has not been realised. The House will ask, and have every reason to ask, why? In the view of the Government, there are three good reasons for this. The first is that during the period of running down of the Armed

Forces, which has been attended by a good deal of uncertainty, it has not been possible for the Services to work out what their permanent requirements for training, and other purposes would be. They have not been able to work out what they must retain permanently, in the interests of national defence, and what they could start to hand back to owners, possibly after it had been rehabilitated.
The second factor which has militated against working to the date in early 1948 has been the slowing down of proceedings, due to the procedure laid down before permanent acquisition can be decided on. We make no complaint about that. Public opinion, both national and local, very properly takes a lively interest in such diversions. An enormous amount of time is spent in consulting with all the various interests concerned, including local authorities, organisations interested in the amenities and beauty of the countryside, and so on, and in trying to meet the objections of each. This must often be followed by a public inquiry, in accordance with the promise made by the Prime Minister in November, 1946. This process of inquiry is set forth in the White Paper, which, no doubt, is in the hands of most of the hon. Members present.
The third reason why we have to come to the House and ask for an extension of time in relation to the land used for military purposes is the ever-increasing stringency in the supply of labour and materials. This has made it difficult, if not impossible, to go ahead as quickly as it had been hoped in clearing away war works and restoring land to a state in which it can be handed back to its owners. Other and more pressing jobs have to be undertaken, and have to take precedence over this work, necessary though it is.
I should add, for the sake of perspective, that the most important reason for requiring this extension of time is not to enable the Government to acquire land permanently for military purposes, useful though that power may be. Such power is available to the Government, if they desire it, under the Defence Act, and in many cases they will undoubtedly use the Defence Act powers for acquiring land permanently where it is needed. The Bill does not in any degree affect the powers which the Government have under other enactments. It is true that the present Bill extends Part II of the 1945 Act which


does give power for permanent acquisition. But this applies only to a limited range of cases. More important is the extension of Part VI. That is the power to remain temporarily on land in order, either to decide whether it should be permanently acquired, or to remove war works, or, as is the case in some instances, to put it into a fit state for agricultural use. In these instances the purpose of these further powers is not to sterilise the land, but to ensure that it shall not be sterilised.
These three reasons, in the view of the Government, provide solid ground for asking Parliament to extend the period during which Service Departments can exercise these powers. The Departments are very anxious to clear away these terminal and transitional tasks as soon as possible, so that they can concentrate on their normal functions. Only those who have come into close touch with the Service Departments, and have seen the difficulties with which they are faced in this direction, can realise what those difficulties have been, and how anxious the Departments have been to surmount them and come to some decision as to whether they desire permanently to keep or to give up land which has been requisitioned. Therefore, if Parliament agree to the extension, there will not be any fear that the Departments will use this extra time as an excuse for inactivity. In their own interests, if for no other reason, they will push ahead as quickly as competing demands will allow.
I should remind the House that the powers of Government Departments to acquire land under Part II and close highways under Part III of the 1945 Act are not exercisable without any check or control. In each case they have to publish their proposals, and if they are objected to they have to be submitted to the War Works Commission, who are an independent quasi judicial body, who can report that the proposals ought not to be proceeded with. In some cases the Corn-mission can be overridden by the Government, but in that case the matter comes to Parliament, and Parliament itself decides whether to uphold the Government decision or that of the War Works Commission.
The second object of this Bill is to revise compensation. At the moment, as

I indicated when I began, compensation consists of two elements; rental compensation, payable during the period of requisition, and terminal compensation, payable at the end of requisitioning for damage done during occupation. Rental compensation is governed by Section 2 of the Compensation Defence Act, 1939, and Section 45 of the Requisition Land and War Works Act, 1945. The broad effects of the provisions in these two Acts is that rental compensation is, at present, limited to 1939 values as a maximum. It can be less where, for example, if the requisitioning took effect during the war somewhere in a South coast town where values were below 1939 values at that time and have since remained below what they were in March, 1939. Therefore, at present, compensation is limited to 1939 values as a maximum.
The House will remember that earlier this year the 1939 standard for compensation on compulsory acquisition was abandoned. The two Town and Country Planning Acts of last Session substituted a basis of current value restricted to existing use, excluding scarcity value due to vacant possession. It is proposed to effect the same principle so far as rental compensation is concerned. Provision is therefore made in the Bill, that rental compensation shall be adjusted, on a claim by the owner, to current restricted values subject to a ceiling of 1939 values, plus 60 per cent., the property being regarded as being in the state in which it was when requisitioned. In the view of the Government, this ceiling is a simple and just method of excluding any unreasonable inflation due to scarcity.
To give an example, so that the House will understand what this Clause actually proposes so far as rental compensation is concerned, let us suppose the 1939 value was £1,000 per annum. The addition of 60 per cent. would mean an addition of £600. That would bring the maximum for rental compensation to £1,600 per annum, but, if the current restricted value is only £1,500, then only £1,500, and not £1,600, would be payable. If the current restricted value was as much as £2,000, then only the £1,600 would be paid. In other words, the 1939 value, plus 60 per cent. is a ceiling. The compensation can be lower, but it cannot go above that.
I may remind the House that, in the Town and Country Planning Acts, we


inserted a provision in order to meet this scarcity point by assuming a notional lease ending in 1954. We do not do that here, because we have approached the problem in a different way. In our view, and this is a point which may be discussed on the Committee stage, we achieve substantially the same result without interposing a notional lease. In the case of rent restricted property, the ceiling will be the standard rent.
Now I want to say a word or two about terminal compensation. Terminal compensation is the cost of repairing damage done during requisition, and that compensation is also at present subject to a ceiling—the pre-emergency value of the property. This provision, as is, I think, generally accepted in the House, does bear very hardly on owners whose property has been destroyed or substantially damaged during the requisition, because costs have risen very steeply. In fact, present day costs of substantial repairs may exceed the 1939 value of the original property. The Bill, therefore, to meet this situation, proposes to repeal the existing limitation and substitute as a maximum the difference between the capital value of the property in its state at derequisitioning and its capital value in its original state, both these values being taken by reference to current values on the basis adopted for compensation on compulsory acquisition.
Perhaps, here again, it might help the House if I gave a concrete example. Let us suppose that the capital value of a property when derequisitioned in its damaged state was £500, that is, at present day values. The capital value of the property in the state in which it was taken over might have been, say, £2,500 at present day values, though the original property at a 1939 valuation might well have been only £750. The difference between the value of the property in its present damaged state at present values and its capital value in its original state at present day values is £2,000, so that the terminal compensation in that particular case would be limited to £2,000. I ought to make it clear that that £2,000 would be a maximum, and unless the cost of repairs to the property came to that figure or more, the £2,000 would not be paid. Something less would he paid if the cost of making good the damage did in fact come to less than £2,000.

Mr. Scollan: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he explain whether the value will be taken from the valuation roll or whether it will be taken from somewhere else?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is difficult, as it were, to project oneself back to 1939 and to decide quite definitely what values were then, but, obviously, the valuation in the roll would be a good indication of what sort of value it was, and, normally, I think that would be taken.

Mr. Gammans: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, in the case of the value of a reconstituted property, whether he means the value according to the standard in which it existed when taken over or the standard which would be allowed today, in the light of the shortages of materials, labour and so on?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course, many of these points are Committee points, and I do not want, in moving the Second Reading as briefly as possible, to enter into a lot of details about compensation. I might, perhaps, say that the Solicitor-General will be replying to the Debate and will cover any point such as that which has been raised, and which hon. Members will have a chance to raise again when we reach the Committee stage.

Mr. Bossom: Will the compensation be paid, or will the work have to be done before the compensation is paid?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is, of course, another point of detail. It has, first of all, to be decided what work is necessary, and an agreement has to be reached as to the cost. I might, in answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), say that obviously the cost of repairs would be the cost of putting the property back substantially into the same state as it was before the damage was done. That, I think, goes without saying, and it has been the policy which has been followed generally up to now.

Mr. Bossom: Will the people be told to carry out these improvements, corrections or repairs?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman will find that point covered in Section 2


of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.

Mr. Bossom: That is not being modified?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, I thought I had made it clear that we are dealing with the provisions of the 1939 Act as modified by the provisions contained in the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. Section 45 of the 1945 Act and Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, are considered together for this purpose, and we superimpose on them these Clauses to make these changes in values, and limits, ceilings, and so on.
The third main purpose of this Bill is to provide powers for the permanent maintenance of the long distance oil pipe line which was laid during the war. I think it is generally known now that this pipe line does exist, and the problem was foreseen in the Act of 1945. At that time, it was decided that this pipe line might be left there permanently, and that some arrangements would have to be made about it. In fact, in the 1945 Act, provision was made for easements to be acquired to protect the line, while the sites of certain structural works erected in connection with the line could be permanently acquired.
Experience has shown during the last two years that that is a very slow and cumbersome method. There are many hundreds of owners who would have to be dealt with, and the matter would take many years; that being so, it has been thought reasonable, and provision has been made in the Bill, for a change which will permit the Government to deal with it without having to negotiate easements, owner by owner, with the various interests involved. Section 28 of the 1945 Act gives, in practice, most of the powers which the Government need to carry out this new proposal; that is, to obtain powers for this line without necessarily having to treat with every individual owner in the way suggested in the original Act. We believe that this new procedure will make things very much easier for all concerned, and we hope that the House will agree to it.
So much, therefore, for the main objects of the Bill. To recapitulate: Clause 1 deals with the equation of the

date for military and economic purposes, and makes the two end on 10th December, 1952. Clauses 6 to 10 deal with compensation, to which I have already referred. Clauses 11 to 14 deal with the Government oil pipeline and the arrangements which the Government propose should be brought into being to deal with it. I have, of course, no desire to speak at too great a length on points of detail which can best be dealt with, as I have already said, when we reach the Committee stage. This is, however, a very technical Bill, much of it is legislation by reference—and unavoidably so, I am sorry to say—and, therefore, it is not too easy to follow what is aimed at in some of the Clauses. Perhaps, therefore, I should direct attention to one or two other matters contained in the Bill.
Clause 2 deals with the acquisition of agricultural land where its use in existing units is affected by Government war work. What we have mainly in mind are aerodromes which have ceased to be used. The difficulty here is that the original Act of 1945 only permitted land to be acquired if that was necessary in order to rehabilitate it. It has now been found that some land which does not need any rehabilitation should be brought into the same procedure, so that the various farm units can be considered as a whole in order to secure its best possible future use as agricultural land. It may well be that where an aerodrome was made and runways laid down, no regard was had to the way in which farms were made up. A runway may run from one farm, across the fields, to another. We have found that it has sometimes been very difficult to get farmers to agree as to just what should be done. These powers, if the House agrees to give them to the Government, will enable the authorities to readjust boundaries in a sensible way, so as to restore the land to agricultural or to forestry purposes.

Mr. York: Could the Minister explain in what respect Clause 2 is different from Section 85 of the Agriculture Act?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It really adds powers to it. We are here dealing with war works, or land which has been requisitioned during the war, and all we are suggesting is that, where the boundaries


of requisitioned land do not permit of its full use as agricultural land or for forestry purposes, the Government Department concerned should have power to alter boundaries in order to make the best use of it for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Mallon): Has not the Minister of Agriculture already got those powers under the 1947 Act?

Mr. Glenvill Hall: I understand not. Here, as I say, the kind of case which we have almost solely in mind is that of an aerodrome which, very often, runs over quite a number of miles, one way or another, and where the runways have had to be fitted in with no relation whatever to the way in which the farms were previously divided. It may cover several farms. In many cases, the runways will not be grouted up; they will be left there. We want to make the best use of the land where these runways exist, so that the farms and the land can be put to the most useful purpose. That being so, it may well be that compulsory powers will have to be used in order to alter boundaries where agreement between the farmers and the owners concerned has not, up to now, been possible

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do the powers of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries extend to the Secretary of State for Scotland? They are not mentioned in Clause 2.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that if my hon. Friend will turn to the end of the Bill he will find that it also applies to Scotland. If I remember rightly, there is a Clause towards the end of the Bill where reference is made to Scotland, and where certain terms and phrases, which are better known in Scotland, are used.

Mr. Charles Williams: I do not think that Clause 17 is quite in the usual form of other Scottish Clauses. Can the Minister say whether we shall have the privilege of the attendance of a Scottish Law Officer to explain the complicated part of this Clause, because it raises an interesting point, and bears on what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the answer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is that there is a very simple

reference to Scotland—I think it is almost a one line reference.

Mr. Williams: No.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The other references are quite simple and straightforward; there is nothing ambiguous or obscure about them. In any case, I have no doubt that if, when we reach the Committee stage, it is considered essential that a Scottish Minister should be present, he will be there. But it will all depend (a) on the Minister, and (b) on whether the Committee and the House think it worth while for him to be present.
I think I should also make reference to Clause 3, which deals with highways, and explain briefly why these provisions are inserted. Section 15 of the 1945 Act—

Mr. Scollan: Before my right hon. Friend deals with Section 15 of the 1945 Act, would he clear up the previous point? I understood him to say that the runways on aerodromes were not to be lifted. Obviously, the runways are precisely the parts of aerodromes which divide up the various farms. If the runways are not to be lifted, I cannot see the point about settling boundaries.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: What I tried to say was that, in some instances, where aerodromes have been dismantled and given up, the runways, unfortunately, do not necessarily confine themselves to one particular farm. They may run over the boundaries between one farm and another. If as has happened in some cases, it is decided that it would be too expensive to grout up the runways, they will be left there, which means that some sort of change will have to be made in order to make the best use of farms thus interfered with. This power is required if boundaries have to be changed.
I was in process of dealing with Clause 3, and was going on to explain why these provisions have been inserted. Section 15 of the 1945 Act enables highways, which were closed in the exercise of emergency powers, to be permanently closed by order, subject to substantial safeguards, including reference to the War Works Commission. Clause 3 does two things. It extends the duration of the power to use Section 15 until 10th December, 1952—this is, of course, consequential on the extension to which I have already referred, and which is contained in Clause 1


of this Bill—and it enables Section 15 to be used where the highway has, in fact, been closed, but where no formal order was issued at the time under Defence Regulation 16. Cases have come to light where because a footpath was little used, or because of the difficulties of the time, and the hurry of events during the war, the existence of such a footpath was not known.
That being so, no order was made at the time. The result is that, if no order was made, it is impossible for those concerned to take advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1945, which include provision for a public inquiry before the War Works Commission. I think that is very unfair, and that they should be permitted, in spite of the fact that no formal order was made at the time, to exercise the same right as can be exercised where a formal order was made. What we do here is not to close anew any footpath at all. It gives the right to those who feel that some further steps should be taken where a footpath has been temporarily closed to have the matter brought under the procedure laid down in the 1945 Act—that of a public inquiry.
It is essential, of course, that this matter should be cleared up because, I understand, frequently factories were built on land or on fields, perhaps right across a footway or footpath without anyone at the time realising that the footpath was there. It is quite impossible to pull war works down or dismantle a factory, and the only way is for us to allow the law to take its course as laid down. This is the method, so we are advised, of achieving that end.

Mr. Turton: Could they not go to Quarter Sessions?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the 1945 Act and cares to look at Sections 15, 16 and 17, he will see the procedure laid down for appeal to the War Works Commission and for a public inquiry to be held. That can only happen if a formal order has been made. If no formal order has been made, apparently people concerned can have no recourse to the procedure, and what we want to do is to get inquiries of this kind put on their legs so that if it is desired to take the matter further it will be possible to do so.
I think I have covered most of the main points in the Bill. There are other Clauses, dealing with easements and other minor points. I have not dealt with everything as it would have taken far too long for me to cover the whole of the Bill in detail. As the House knows, the Secretary of State for War proposes to speak during this Debate and the Solicitor-General will be winding up. I think, therefore, I have said enough to commend the Bill to the House.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: As will be seen from the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in the name of myself and of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, we take a very unfavourable view of the main purpose of this Bill. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether, if I move the Amendment before I resume my seat, the scope of the Debate would in any way be limited? It is, of course, in the general interest of hon. Members that the Debate should be as wide as possible and should include all the Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: In my view, moving the Amendment would not limit the Debate in the slightest degree. After all, the Bill will be before the House and the Amendment will be before the House and, therefore, the whole subject will be just as wide as it was before.

Mr. Peake: In that case I will read the terms of the Amendment to the House and move it at the end of my speech.
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by extending for a prolonged period wartime powers to acquire and retain land for military purposes, encourages procrastination and delay on the part of Service Departments, inflicts hardship on individuals whose interests are affected and creates uncertainty regarding the use of land for agricultural and other productive purposes.
I was dumbfounded to hear the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his opening remarks suggest that many of the powers asked for in this Bill are already part of the law of the land. If that is the case, it makes complete nonsense of all the assurances, the pledges and the undertakings given to this House during the Debate on the Supplies and Services Act (1945), by his colleague the Home Secretary.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry if I have misled the House, but what I meant to say, and what I hope I did say, was that so far as the acquisition of land by the Service Departments is concerned, the Defence Acts give them all the powers they want to acquire land. These powers are in addition. It is true that some of the land may be acquired under this Bill, if passed, but they could always acquire land, if so minded, under Acts of Parliament already in existence.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course it is true that certain of the land to which this Bill will apply could be purchased by the Defence Departments for purely defence purposes under Defence Acts dating from 1842. In the course of the war the Government have put war works on land and if they proceed under the Defence Acts they would have to pay the present landlords for the improvements which the Government had carried out during the war by putting valuable war works on the land. It is not, therefore, a very practicable course for the Government to suggest that they could, in fact, buy under the Defence Acts land in any great quantities which they take power to deal with under the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman apologised to the House, and I think rightly, for the extraordinary complexity of this Bill. It is an outstanding case of legislation by reference and in order to understand Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, which is the main operative Clause, one has to refer not only to the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945—which I spent many afternoons and evenings defending in Committee during its passage through the House—but one has also to refer to two Supplies and Services Acts, that of 1945 and that of 1947, and also to the Temporary Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of this year.
We claim that the main purpose of this Bill, which is to give Service Departments another 4½ years as from February 24th of next year to make up their minds whether or not they wish to buy land and buildings upon which they have placed war works or which they have damaged by war use, is unfair to the individual whose property is concerned and is contrary to the public interest. We think this continued procrastination and delay on the part of Government Departments in

making up their minds whether or not they wish to purchase land is contrary to public policy and injurious to the common welfare of all persons concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman has explained clearly enough what were the main purposes of the Act of 1945. There is a vast variety of buildings which were placed upon land, either requisitioned or unrequisitioned land, by Government Departments during the war. They include works of all kinds: runways, aerodromes, factories; dwelling houses, in some cases, were built upon unrequisitioned land; air raid shelters, and concrete emplacements of all sorts for guns of all kinds. All these works, of course, have to be considered, and the Government have to make up their mind whether or not they wish to purchase the sites upon which they were placed.
Acquisition by the Government may be either to maintain value for the Government, in order to get the value of the money expended by the Government during the war, or alternatively, for the purposes of rehabilitation and restoration. As early as March, 1945, the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which sat throughout the war, considered this matter, and in their Second Report for that year, on 8th March, in paragraph 36, they stated as follows:
Your Committee consider that the time has now come when a definite decision should be made which will enable Departments to determine which properties they will require and which they will eventually be able to release.
That was the recommendation of a Select Committee of this House, consisting of Member of all parties; and it was at that time a unanimous recommendation.
Then we came a month later to the Debates on the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. Great pressure was brought to bear upon the Government, of which I was then a Member, to limit the duration of the exercise of these powers of compulsory acquisition, and we agreed that the period for their exercise should be limited to two years after the end of the war period, the war period, in its turn, being defined as the date when the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, should expire. In the course of those Debates, when we were being pressed for a time limit upon the exercise of these compulsory powers, the present Minister of Health, who then occupied a position of


greater freedom and less responsibility, spoke very strongly about this matter, and expressed himself as follows:
Owners of property—
and it is rather curious to have the right hon. Gentleman coming forward in defence of owners of property, but, at any rate, this is what he said—
ought to be able, at the earliest possible moment, to know what their future will be. I believe it is the worst possible situation for individuals, owners of property or no property, to have no practicable future before them, knowing that at any moment the Government can step in and do something about which they cannot make the slightest possible conjecture. That is a ridiculous situation because it substitutes caprice for injustice.
That is a rather typical flourish of the right hon. Gentleman. He concluded by saying:
It is not unreasonable to ask Government Departments to make up their mind within two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 526–7.]
During 1945 the present Government introduced the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, and the right hon. Gentleman referred to Section 5 (5) of that Act, which deals with this matter. That Subsection extends the period during which these compulsory powers of acquisition can be exercised in a certain limited class of cases—that is, the cases where the land is required for what are called transitional economic purposes, as opposed to military purposes.
That Subsection of Section 3 has an interesting history. The original Clause in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill would have prolonged the period for the exercise of these powers in all cases; and it was very strongly objected to by two hon. Friends of mine, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York). On the Committee stage, which was taken on the Floor of the House—and I say, in passing, that I hope that the Committee stage of this Bill will also be taken on the Floor of the House—the Financial Secretary defended his Clause on the grounds that a similar Clause would have been included in a Bill which the Caretaker Government intended to bring forward had there not been a General Election. I can recollect no justification for that defence of the Clause inserted in that Act. At any rate, no such Bill with such a Clause in it ever saw the light of day.
The present Home Secretary took a very poor view of the argument of the Financial Secretary, because he, on Report stage of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, came down with a wholly new proposal, a proposal which gave considerable satisfaction to the opponents of the original Clause. He proposed a new Subsection, which is the Subsection that found its way into the Act of 1945; and that is the one which contains the proviso which Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill intends to remove. It is very relevant in this discussion, therefore, to refer to the speech of the Home Secretary when he brought up this new Subsection on the Report Stage of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. I am extremely sorry that the Home Secretary is not in his place today, because he, I feel, alone could possibly explain the appalling discrepancies between his statements then and what the Government propose to do now. I am afraid I shall have to quote his assurances, his undertakings and his pledges somewhat extensively; but they are completely relevant to the issue now before the House, and I hope the House will, therefore, bear with me. The right hon. Gentleman said:
On the Committee stage … I under-took to give very careful reconsideration to Clause 5, Subsection (5) … and particularly to endeavour to meet some points that had been raised in the course of the discussion by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York). … I have tried to set out as clearly as possible … the exact purposes for which this Subsection (5) will be required. … We recognise that the premises and works concerned fall into two categories for which different treatment is necessary. In the first category are premises requisitioned and works constructed for war purposes … and not required for the new purposes set out in Clause 1, Subsection (1), of this Bill.
That is, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act.
As regards that category, we accept the contention that the two-year period after next February ought not to be extended. … That is to say, to put it colloquially, if these works have been carried out on premises requisitioned for purely military purposes, we do not seek to extend our power to maintain the works or hold them beyond the period that was originally fixed by the Requisitioned Lands Act. So that within two years after 24th February next"—
That was 1946, to which he then referred—
the Government will have to make up their minds in accordance with the pledges given


by the Coalition Government, and no extension of our powers is sought in that respect.
A perfectly categorical statement on behalf of the Government by the present Home Secretary, exactly two years ago, that they had no intention whatever of doing precisely what the main purpose of this Bill is designed to achieve. In explaining his concession to the House, the right hon. Gentleman went on:
This has been a very genuine effort on my part to meet the case that was made out from the other side of the House. I have had the advantage of a conversation with my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers, and they are anxious to bring to an end as soon as possible their retention of any land or buildings that they have taken over for war purposes and that are no longer required."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 19th October, 1945; vol. 414. c. 1601–3, 1606.]
Of course, those Service Ministers to whom he referred are not by any means the same Service Ministers that we have today. There is a migrating season for Service Ministers.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is the same policy.

Mr. Peake: We have had no fewer than eight Service Ministers for three Service Ministries during the past two and a half years. At any rate, the Service Ministers of that day were consulted, and apparently assented to the course which the Home Secretary then proposed. This Bill negatives every single statement made by the Home Secretary on 19th October, 1945. It shows a complete lack of any consistent policy on behalf of the Government, and it encourages continued delay in coming to any definite decision.
There has been recently published a White Paper on the needs of the Armed Forces for land for training and other purposes. Two years ago the Home Secretary thought that effective decisions would he taken by 24th February, 1948. The fact is that now effective decisions need not be taken until 10th December, 1952—a period of more than five years from today. I say that this is positively disastrous. The White Paper itself, which was delayed—its publication was promised in January last, I think, and it appeared in December of this year—does not tell us which areas of land will be taken for Service requirements. All it does is to give us a global estimate of the total amount of land required.
The land required is apparently to be four times that occupied by Service Departments before the war and includes no less than 160,000 acres in areas scheduled for national parks. How is it possible for any planning authorities to proceed with proper planning, whether for national parks or any other purpose, if for another five years there is to be complete uncertainty as to which land, and how much land, is to be taken for Service purposes? My hon. Friends, and no doubt hon. Members opposite also, will be able to give any number of examples which are known to them personally. I will weary the House for but a moment by giving an example which is known to myself.
My father's house has been a group headquarters of the Royal Air Force since 1940, under requisition: About once every nine months since the war I have written a very civil letter to one of the very civil and courteous friends of mine who have been Secretary of State for Air, to inquire very politely whether I may be told if the Air Ministry intends to remain there permanently, or whether at some future time I may expect my ancestral home to be thrust back on my hands. Of course, I get no definite reply; the decision is postponed. It does not injure me, because I shall never live in the house. But there are other people who want the house. There is the Coal Board. When the present Secretary of State for War was Minister of Fuel and Power he was after it.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Oh no.

Mr. Peake: He wanted it for the officials of the Coal Board. Then there is the local education authority; they want the house. A voluntary hospital is also inquiring about it. I cannot give any of these people an answer because the Air Ministry simply cannot and will not say whether this house will be required permanently as a group headquarters of the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friends will he able to give many instances of exactly similar circumstances where the public interest is being injured through lack of any effective decisions being taken. That is our main objection to the Bill.
I want to say just one or two words about some of the other Clauses. Clause 2—which we think is an overlap very


largely of Section 84 of the Agriculture Act—seems to us to be quite unobjectionable. I must say a little about Clause 3, which deals with the closing of highways, because this is also a subject upon which the present Home Secretary committed himself and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench pretty deeply in 1945. Clause 3 provides, not only that highways may continue for the next five years to be stopped up by administrative order, but that highways may be stopped up by administrative order even where they have been illegally stopped up for several years past through the action of Service or other Government Departments. That is clearly the effect of Clause 3.
In that connection, I refer to the Home Secretary's statements on this very matter in the Debate to which I have already referred. In order to satisfy my hon. Friends the Home Secretary said:
I have excluded altogether from the operation of the Subsection Part III of the Requisitioned Lands Act which deals with highways. … Perhaps I might make it quite clear that there will now be no power other than those in the ordinary processes of law to stop up or divert highways, because on 28th September an Order in Council was approved which withdrew from the War Agricultural Executive Committees the power to arrange for the ploughing up of footpaths. … So that I think that from the passing of this Bill there will be no power to make any fresh diversion or closure of a highway except in the three ways known to the law, even before the war started—either a special Act of Parliament, an Order of the justices in Quarter Sessions, or a town planning scheme. I hope on that point that I have fully met all that was desired, and, may I say, which I myself desired to secure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1602.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend has not gone back on that. I would remind the House—although I make no complaint about that quotation—that in actual fact we are not closing any new highways, none of them, and those words of my right hon. Friend still hold.

Mr. Peake: That is all very well, but not a week passes without my receiving a whole batch of Statutory Rules and Orders closing up highways. Every week these things are coming up. They are coming up by the handful all the time. The right hon. Gentleman may say that these are not new closings, but they are permanent closings, some of which were

undertaken legally, and some of which were undertaken illegally, during the war period.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not by this Government.

Mr. Peake: I dare say not, but here we are having, by administrative order, a permanent closing of highways for all time, although these highways were originally closed under wartime powers and for purely wartime purposes. That runs absolutely counter to what was said by the Home Secretary in this House on 19th October, 1945.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but it is important to get this right, because it goes to the root of the matter. I agree that no one would be willing, if what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, to agree to these words being inserted in the Bill, but what we are trying to do is to right a wrong. These footpaths were closed during the war, and in some cases it was not known that they even existed. We cannot go back on the past. All we can do is to give to those people who feel aggrieved the power to bring this matter to inquiry, which they cannot unless we agree to these words.

Mr. Peake: That may be so, but it seems to me that the provisions in the Bill run counter to the Home Secretary's statement that
I might make it quite clear that there will now be no power other than those in the ordinary processes of law to stop up or divert highways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1602.]
As regards the Clauses which amend the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, I have very little comment to make at this stage. It seems that the tying down of compensation, either to 1939 values, or to an even lower scale of values, which was established sometime during the war, is now no longer justified. The question upon which I am not satisfied is whether the ceiling of 60 per cent. above 1939 values is justifiable under present conditions.
Clauses 11 to 14 deal with oil pipe-lines, and I think that on the whole it is a reasonable solution of the problem which these pipe-lines involve. In one respect the owner of land under which a pipeline passes is very hardly treated. His interests will obviously suffer by the existence of the pipe-line. He will be pre-


vented, for example, from building upon the surface. He is only to receive compensation if he puts in a claim, whereas many of these owners will be quite ignorant of the fact that a pipe-line runs under their land. I should have thought the t the Treasury or the Ministry concerned should have taken steps to ascertain who are the owners concerned, and then to inform them of their rights to compensation.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The Bill provides that the pipeline has to be registered in the local land charges register, or endorsed on the deeds. Therefore, they will always know.

Mr. Peake: The point I am dealing with—and I am not sure that it is the same thing—is the provision under Clause 12, which states that only such persons will obtain compensation who make a claim in accordance with the regulations framed by the Treasury.
I think that I have stated the main grounds for our objection to this Bill quite clearly to the House. We say that it puts off for nearly another five years vital decisions regarding the future use of land and buildings in this country. For that reason, it is unfair to individuals and is contrary to the public welfare.
I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by extending for a prolonged period wartime powers to acquire and retain land for military purposes, encourages procrastination and delay on the part of Service Departments, inflicts hardship on individuals whose interests are affected and creates uncertainty regarding the use of land for agricultural and other productive purposes.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: It is usual at the outset to declare one's interest in a Bill. I have no personal interest, but I have an interest as a member of the executive committee of the National Trust, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on behalf of the National Trust concerning the provisions of this Bill. The real point is how this Bill is to be administered. Everything will depend upon administration, and, therefore, I want to make a plea on behalf of the National Trust. The Trust is regarded as the protector of the amenities and

properties it controls throughout the country. People look to it to preserve the beauty spots which it owns. The Trust is being pressed by its supporters to obtain derequisitioning of its property, and it therefore deserves reasonable consideration from these two points of view. Help can be given in two ways.
In the first place, some degree of priority might be given in the form of derequisitioning where that is possible. I know that in many cases that is not possible, but there will be cases of doubt arising where priority should be given. In the second place—and this is even more important—properties belonging to the National Trust should be fully reinstated so that they may be worthy of preservation in the national interest. I am very glad to see the Secretary of State for War present. I should like to give him one example of a property where this difficulty has recently arisen. I am speaking of Selworthy Beacon in Exmoor. In this case, the amenity value depends entirely upon the agricultural land. The agricultural land has been destroyed, and I understand the Department take the view that because it is not good agricultural land, they do not propose to reinstate it. I think I have said all I need say on behalf of the National Trust. Although I am sorry to see that requisitioning is to go on for so long, I have no doubt that in many cases it is in the broad national interest. In the event of there being a Division, I propose to go into the Lobby in support of the Government.

4.49 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I wish, first of all, to protest against the form in which this Bill has been presented. It is par excellence legislation by reference, and to one who is not a trained lawyer, it is almost unintelligible. I believe that it is unintelligible even to a trained lawyer, unless he is provided with volume after volume of Public and General Acts. There are an immense number of previous Acts referred to, dating back to 1842. I attempted to wrestle with some of them in the Library, and I found myself rapidly becoming buried in enormous volumes of Acts and old HANSARDS, and I climbed out in despair to fall back on the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, on which my few remarks will be based. I feel that it is wrong that legislation should be presented in this way. It ought to be


codified—if that is the right word—or at any rate presented in a much simpler form. It is not only Members of Parliament who have some exprience of the law who are concerned; numerous public bodies, and associations, and people outside ought to be able easily to understand this Bill.
I want to declare an interest in this matter. My house has been requisitioned since 1940, and is now occupied by German prisoners. They are very comfortable I believe. Indeed, many of them do not want to go back to Germany. Incidentally, I was there on Sunday, and if anyone really wanted to know what this country would have been like had the Germans won the war then he might have a look at that house. But I do not want to refer merely to my house, or that part of my father's park and farm which has also been requisitioned.
As I go about my constituency and the country I see that many acres of agricultural land, which were requisitioned by the War Office during the war, are still held, and are rendering sterile land which might be used for agriculture. There seems to be no finality of tenure. Some of this land is occupied by camps, rather derelict looking huts, which are even more scattered than they normally would be because they were placed under trees and hedges to conceal them from aircraft. In so doing, they occupy more land than they might otherwise have occupied. There is usually a barrack warden, or a Pole, or a displaced person to be seen wandering about; otherwise, there is no one in the vicinity at all. Rough grass is growing around the camp sites, and the Noxious Weeds Order and other orders of the local agricultural committee are being broken. There is concealed dannert wire in the grass around the camps, and other dangers which prevent cattle being turned out on to the grazing. There is usually a 30-yard range and large areas devoted to vehicle standings, potentially valuable for rubble but useless for agriculture, and in other places wide areas of rough grazing-land are scarred by trenches and crossed by wire and gunpits. In some cases live bombs and shells lie on the ground, thus making it dangerous for anyone to go on the land. There are tank training grounds where the whole

surface of the land has been pulverised, and the vegetation has been completely destroyed.
When we discussed the last Act dealing with this subject we knew that for a further two years we should not know what would happen. Since then we have been pressing to find out when the land was to be handed back and whether, when it was, the damage which had been done would be put right. Much of this damage can only be put right by the Government. Bombs and ammunition must be cleared up by the War Office. When will this be done? We thought it would be done by 24th February, 1948, but now it looks as though we shall have to wait until 10th December, 1952. If we knew for certain when we should get the land back we should be able to plan, which we cannot do today. From what we know of human nature, I fear that nothing will be done until a further three years have lapsed.
I appreciate the difficulties of the War Office, with whom I have had some dealings about individual cases. I largely absolve them from blame, but I think that the work of the inter-Departmental Committee on Services' Land Requirements might have been done much quicker. We were promised the White Paper last February, and we got it only a week or so ago. Even now, it is only an outline. I agree that a great deal of the White Paper is not unreasonable, but I would like to refer to what I consider to be a grave omission. In Part IX, dealing with procedure for examining proposals by Service Departments, there is talk of individual proposals, but there is no opportunity for a farmer, forester, or landowner to make his case, either by joining in preliminary consultations or making representations at the inquiry. I feel that there is a failure here to realise that what are called the personal interests in these cases are really very much the interests of the country, especially in these days of the shortage of food and timber.
My main objection to the Bill is that the wide and drastic powers given in wartime by the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, are now to be extended for another four years or five years. I do not think the Minister justified this step. He said that though there were alternative powers to acquire land it was more honest to regularise procedure by a


Bill of this kind. That point was answered by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who showed that if that was done in any other way it would cost a great amount of money, far greater than the Government ought to pay. I suggest that by pulling down a lot of these camps materials might be obtained, instead of being lost. There is a great deal of material which could be used again, especially timber, for which there is a crying need.
I also believe that it would have been better, in a Bill of this kind, which concerns not only the Service Departments, but the Treasury, if the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning had been brought directly into it. The names of the Ministers of these Departments should have been on the back of the Bill, to show that they were supporting it. I am glad that the Minister of Works is here, because on 13th February, 1945, when he was a private Member, I remember him making a moving speech on this subject. I remember well what he said, and I have read it over again since. He said that the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture should be associated with the Bill we were then discussing, and I am sorry to see that while his name is now on the back of this Bill, the names of those other two Ministers are not.
I would call attention to Clause 2. I have very much sympathy with the principle of it. Damage by dividing fields and farms has been done all over the country because of railways and canals and has gone on for practically a century. We do not want the same thing to happen in the future. But I am still not clear how the Bill will be reconciled with the powers possessed by the Minister of Agriculture under Section 84 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Will the Minister of Agriculture act through the Agricultural Land Commission? Will the appropriate Minister, under Clause 6 of the Bill, use the War Works Commission as his instrument? If that is done, the land will presumably be acquired by the latter Minister under Section 6 of the Act of 1945 and will then be acquired by the Minister of Agriculture under the Agriculture Act, 1947. That will take much longer than is necessary, considering the urgent need there is of land for agricultural use. Perhaps later on I might have

an answer to those questions, and be told whether the procedure can be short-circuited.
We need clarification on Clause 9. Is the compensation purchase price to be that which is payable under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947? I gather that it is, but, if not, I hope that we shall be told what the difference is. On the Committee stage I hope there will be an opportunity for clearing up two apparent defects in the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. That Act does not give satisfaction in the case of severance. I hope that the matter will be gone into again. Undoubtedly too, there is hardship in some cases owing to the fact that, although the property is handed back to the owner, there may be a considerable time lag before it becomes money-earning again. No compensation is obtainable in respect of that time lag.
When I read the Bill I wondered about the four and a half years now being asked for, in which Service Ministers can make up their minds. I wondered whether there was any sinister motive behind the proposal. I do not think there is. I like to put the most generous motives possible upon these things, and I conclude that it is only another example of the desire to put off for as long as possible the evil day when something has to be done. The intense feeling that was aroused by the first Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill, 1945, will be remembered. The Bill was tremendously improved in Committee, largely due to the untiring efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but even at its Third Reading it was not wholly satisfactory.
The Bill perpetuates that Measure and should be looked at with the greatest possible care. Instead of asking for this very long period of extension of power it might have been better to have extended the period, in the first place, until, say, 10th December, 1950. The whole matter could then have been gone into again and after a thorough revision the period could have been prolonged for two years, if necessary. There should not be a four and a half year extension straight off because everybody will now say, "There's no hurry about it," and this matter will go down to the bottom of the file. I liked the idea of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot)


who spoke on behalf of the National Trust. There should be priority for certain types of property, such as the National Trust, and it might be worked into the Bill. I am not happy about the Bill. I do not like the form of it. It is definitely anti the interests of agriculture and therefore I shall support the Amendment against it.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Dye: Like other hon. Members who have spoken I find the Bill difficult to understand, but, unlike them, I have no direct personal interest in matters arising under it. We are finding that although it was comparatively easy to demobilise manpower after the war it is difficult to demobilise land. That may seem to some hon. Members due to procrastination. I would like to see the efforts of Service Departments speeded up in regard to their control and use of land for their own purposes. Our land is so limited that it is of the utmost importance that every bit of it should be used for the production of food as early as possible, and kept to that use.
It is equally clear that the country will need defence, and men and land for that purpose. We have to co-ordinate as much as possible and not to give exclusive use of the land to the Service Departments. Wherever they can be joint users of land with agriculture or forestry, the two uses should be co-ordinated. I, therefore, ask the Ministers responsible for the Measure, where it is part of their purpose to acquire land for Service Departments permanently, to bear in mind that the Departments should make the best use of the land, whether for arable agriculture or for grazing purposes, jointly with the farmers. If they must have the exclusive use of the land themselves, then they themselves should arrange to take the responsibility for the land.
We must produce as much food as possible inside our shores. Where the Services have had until recently, or still have at the present time, exclusive use of land, the agricultural land outside their control deteriorates because of the growth of weeds, vermin and other pests on the Service land. We must bear these matters in mind. If this Bill extends the date for the derequisitioning of land, the De-

partments themselves should not postpone the date for coming to decisions in particular cases. Having got the latest White Paper on the Services' land requirements, cannot we now expect the Service Departments to come to a decision within a comparatively short time? We now have a better understanding of the required size of the Services, and surely the Departments should be asked not merely to limit the use of land but also to come to decisions?
There is in my Division a large battle training area, and I am very glad to say that the War Office has been most cooperative in having some of that land cultivated for growing crops, both during the past year and in preparation for the coming season. I am glad to know that during the last year that land was growing very good crops, and we hope it will grow more crops in the coming year. There are difficulties, however. Farmers cannot go on from year to year on temporary arrangements and make the best use of land. Therefore, there should be a permanent arrangement whereby, if land is to be cultivated it will be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry so that it will grow crops which will produce the food which the nation so urgently needs.
I understand that the position at present is that the land is requisitioned, and I have ascertained that some of it is requisitioned, at an annual rent of 10s. an acre. The agricultural executive committees then let the land to farmers, and in one particular case it is let back to the owners for 10s. an acre. Under that arrangement it seems that the War Office have the use of land for nothing, by paying 10s. an acre for it and then, through the agricultural executive committee, drawing rent of 10s. an acre for exactly the same land. That seems to me to be an arrangement which we might well understand if a Scotsman were in charge of the War Office, whereby they have the complete control over this land for their training purposes from year to year.
The War Office are not satisfied with that arrangement, however. Game abounds in many areas, and although the War Office claim that when they requisitioned the land they requisitioned everything on it, when they let it out they do not let the game rights with it. It is possible for farmers to prepare for excellent crops, and then for those crops to


be devoured by rabbits, hares, pheasants and so on. The question of keeping down game on this land is of the utmost importance, and I ask the Ministers responsible for the continued requisitioning of this land to bear these practical agricultural points in mind.
I am not certain whether the Bill relates to land which is requisitioned for opencast coalmining. That can devastate land from an agricultural point of view for some time, and it can not only affect the field which is being worked but completely upset the whole holding. Therefore, it is not satisfactory to a farmer to be paid rent for only the particular field which is being worked, because the rest of his farm also becomes an uneconomic unit. Compensation should be paid not only for the land which is used for that purpose, but also for the damage done to the whole of the holding. I therefore ask the Ministers responsible to reconsider this Bill so far as it affects the economic use of entire farms.
I would also like to know whether, when land which has been taken for use as an aerodrome is no longer required as such, it is the intention of the Government to hand that land to the Land Commission for rehabilitation for agricultural purposes. There seem to be delays in getting land which is no longer required for such purposes out of the control of the Service Departments, so that it may be put to agricultural use. Is that because we are waiting for the setting up of the Agriculture Commission? If not, I ask the Government to facilitate the transfer of redundant aerodromes so that the land may he put to agricultural use as speedily as possible.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: I wish to speak on that part of the Bill which gives powers to the Service Departments to retain land for training areas. Like the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye), I realise that there have to be these training areas and that the Departments concerned must have a high priority for them, but that does not excuse the Service Departments from taking care to make sure that there are no other areas the use of which would cause much less inconvenience. Perhaps it is not every hon. Member who has the good fortune to represent areas as lovely as those in my constituency. It would be

invidious to suggest which areas are unspoiled or which have already been spoiled, but undoubtedly there are great areas where very little harm could be done to either agriculture or amenities if they were used as training areas.
I feel that the Service Departments do not always take sufficient trouble to make sure whether they could use land where no harm would be done. The Secretary of State for War will agree, I am sure, that through no fault of its own, the Army must inevitably interfere with agriculture when it uses land for training areas and must, therefore, diminish food production. In the area in which I am particularly interested, a moorland area, sheep farming must have been upset and the stock of sheep in the country reduced. The use of this land as a training area must also inevitably disturb the amenities. It is impossible to have gun sites on lovely areas without interfering with the facilities for ramblers. It is obviously inevitable that the Army should erect camps and buildings which will disfigure the land. Therefore, I ask that more care should be taken to avoid spoiling our lovely places.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War has left the Chamber, because I wanted to make two particular criticisms of his Department before he took office, with regard to the retention of land for Service purposes. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman's place has now been taken by the Under-Secretary. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that his Department, perhaps, are sometimes more concerned with their own convenience in their selection of land for training areas than they are with the amount of damage or inconvenience caused to the public. I sometimes wonder whether they do not deliberately choose places within easy access to health resorts. In my constituency, all three Service Departments are trying to take up a position, and I cannot help thinking that they are, to some extent, actuated by their natural desire to put their men in training near such delightful pleasure resorts as Scarborough and Whitby. We are delighted to entertain them individually, but we naturally do not like the idea of their official activities, which can do so much damage to the amenities of that lovely locality. In fact, it has even been suggested that there should be gun sites, so located that firing will be across the


public road between Scarborough and Whitby, which would detract from the advantages of that area.
My second criticism is one which was also made by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk—the very great delay that there has been in dealing with these matters. I hope that some notice will be taken of that. I raised this matter with the Secretary of State's predecessor's predecessor on 7th May, 1946, and I then got a reply that he promised a comprehensive statement in the course of the summer. That was by far the best reply I have received to the many Questions which I have put in this House. The next one was on 23rd July, 1946, when he made a further reply which was a good deal more vague than the first as to when a decision would be made. On 18th December of the same year—when the first of many changes were made—I got a reply from the Secretary of State's predecessor, I think, that he could not say when he could say anything about it. In the middle of July this year, he softened his refusal by saying how much he regretted that the investigation had taken so long.
Still there is no clear indication of what is to happen. I, therefore, ask that we should have some assurance that the War Office in particular will not retain for training areas land where much damage is done to agriculture and amenities, until they are fully satisfied that there is no other land available for their purposes; and secondly, that they will be more businesslike and prompt in making up their minds as to what is to happen, so that the position may be known without delay.

5.24 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: This Debate is concerned not only with agricultural land but with buildings. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Expenditure Committee in 1945 and the Estimates Committee this year produced two reports to Parliament on this matter. They made certain recommendations. The first thing one wants to recognise is that it is not fair to put all the blame on the Service Departments for the delay in carrying out de-requisitioning. The delay has been due to the fact that no fixed policy has been laid down because of the international situation.
It is easy for us in the House of Commons to try to fasten the blame on to the Service Departments and the Ministry of Defence, but when the original arrangements were made and evidence was given before the Expenditure Committee, of which I was the Chairman, it was made perfectly clear that the speed of de-requisitioning both buildings and land would depend entirely on the international situation, and how soon we were able to have a peace treaty with our late enemies. That is the background which we must bear in mind in this House when we consider this Bill. Another aspect fully brought out by the Expenditure Committee is the enormous capital investment by the taxpayer in land and property. Although it is hardly ever mentioned, it is a very big investment indeed. It is right for us to see that that investment is safeguarded because of its potential value for defence.
I am delighted to see a Clause in the Bill with regard to the pipe-line which, when it was made from the Bristol Channel to the Thames, was one of the most secret things of the war. It saved an enormous tonnage of shipping and ensured our supplies of oil. When the Committee, at that date, visited it during its construction, one of the main difficulties was to acquire the necessary land along its alignment and to arrange for the terminal points and booster pumping stations. The cost of that pipe-line ran into a good many million pounds. The Committee very rightly said, "What do you propose to do to safeguard the public investment in this public necessity?" We got a very unsatisfactory answer. Now, I think, one can assume, taking into account this Bill and that the pipeline throughout its length can be considered as all one property, so to speak, that the attention of the Ministry of Supply will be drawn to the fact that some of the terminal points have now been entirely taken down and will take some time to reconstruct; and also that there is an insufficient maintenance party in charge of the stations throughout its length. There is, no excuse for that. The shortage of manpower is no excuse when there is a public investment running into millions, if it is deteriorating through inadequate maintenance. That point should be remembered. It is a good point in the Bill.
The other matter with which both Committees dealt has been raised today. That is the question of airfields. It is a technical matter for the Air Council, but all of us who have a large number of airfields in our constituencies realise that, just as it has been difficult for the Army to fix training grounds in suitable locations, so it has been almost impossible, for the same reasons, for the Air Ministry to decide what should be the minimum number of operational stations to be maintained, and how far the improvements and alterations in the type of aircraft will render useless a very large number of restricted air fields.
In certain parts of the country—in my constituency there are two—there are large grass airfields. These airfields are usually on the best agricultural ground. The best agricultural land was selected because on it could be planted the best turf, and on the best turf could land the largest machines. But it seems strange that we should still retain 100 per cent. grass areas, when there are fairly close to them airfields with concrete runways, which cannot be dug up because the expense would be too great, but which could be used for training purposes or whatever purposes the grass airfields are being used, and the grass airfields returned promptly to agriculture. The answer, I suppose, is that we have to train pilots to land on concrete runways and on grass, but I can hardly believe that should be the answer at the expense of hundreds of acres of the most valuable agricultural lands. I think that the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee at the time was that the evidence did not justify the retention of these grass airfields. But they are still there.
In common with other hon. Members, the thing I dislike about this Bill is the lack of a sense of urgency in getting on with the job. I feel that it is a Bill which ought only to pass on the undertaking being given by the Financial Secretary, as introducing the Bill on behalf of the three Service Departments, that they should devise a perfectly definite scale of release in the intervening years so that when we reach 1950 or 1952, or whatever the date is, there is practically no reason for the Bill. I think we can support them on the evidence. I have here a copy of the first report of this Session of the Estimates

Committee on the release of requisitioned property, and I recommend hon. Members to take the trouble to read what their colleagues say. These Committees take up a lot of the time of hon. Members, they absorb the time of civil servants who come to give evidence, and the members go to immense trouble to prepare a Report. There the Report is and no one raises questions about the recommendations except probably some Member of the Committee. I see some Members present, and I hope they will support the plea that when a Committee of this House makes a Report the Members of the House should be good enough to study it and see if they agree with the recommendations.
It turns out that in March, 1947, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Works were paying 8,035,000 in rentals. That is a considerable sum and we cannot afford it, because not only is it hard on the taxpayer, but it does no good, because it leaves a feeling at the back of the mind of the man whose land has been requisitioned that he cannot carry through a proper agricultural policy, for he has no certainty of progressive cropping. If it is a factory, a public hall or whatever it may be, nine times out of ten, as this Report shows, it is being held for covered storage space. Unfortunately the Minister of Works has endless demands made upon him by every Department for more and more covered space.
The Admiralty after the war wanted another 8 million square feet of additional covered space, and the evidence we had was that the Ministry of Works were seriously considering the erection of that accommodation. What is it for? It is for mobilisation stores. Are we quite sure that the stores will be useful for winning a war? Are all the stores of the 1939–45 war going to be vitally useful in winning the next war, because one of the dangers with which we are always confronted in this country is that we restore all the things of the war before and then expect to win the following war with those stores? Tremendous progress has been made in scientific research and discovery, and I suggest that the Service Departments might well review what is being stored, and get rid of a lot of the material, which I think is occupying requisitioned property which could quite well be stored in the open, because it is of little value.
I do not think there is any representative of the Air Ministry here today, but not more than two months ago this sort of thing was going on. Thirty-eight ton R.A.F. launches which had been out in India and were lying on the beaches, were sent home at the cost of £10,000. They fell to pieces when they were unloaded, for they had been lying under the tropical sun for about nine months or more. They were ordered to be sent home to be stored in some place which the Ministry of Works had got to provide, but any one not taking part in the Mad Hatter's Tea Party would have suggested taking out the valuable parts of the launches, the engines, for instance, if they had any value, and not taking the launches as deck cargo on a freighter all the way from India at tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and then all they do is fall to pieces when they are unloaded. That is perfectly absurd, and the sort of thing the House wants to see avoided.
One other point in this proposal is worthy of attention. I believe myself that it is inevitable that this Bill should be adopted. I see no other way out. After all, we have heard from the Service Departments and the different Ministries as to the accommodation they want, I do not believe that there is anything else which can be done. I think probably it is unnecessary to make it look tidy by fixing a date, whatever it happens to be. That is the bad part of the Bill, and I do not think any Minister approves of it, and because it has appeared in some previous enactment is no reason for making it sacrosanct. We have first of all to recognise that accommodation depends on policy, that policy depends on the general situation, and that the Government can only rely on the expert advice of the Chiefs of Staff committee in so far as finances are concerned. So far as economy is concerned, practically all the factories have now been released, but there are still too many schools held. We were told in evidence that the schools were going to be released quickly as priority, but the schools have not been released in toto. I know that schools for the children of officers who were killed are still being retained and those children cannot get the education they certainly deserve.
The conditions of requisitioning ought to be looked at with the greatest possible care, and I should feel much happier about this Bill if I got some assurance from the Secretary of State for War that he recognises the danger of extending this period of time because it might lead to proscrastination and all the rest of it, and that he would be willing to fix a definite scale of releases up to and terminating in the year 1952. There is this other point that we are very short of manpower, and one of the most fantastic, and wasteful things now going on is the failure of the three Service Departments not to combine in regard to surveying work and getting rid of property. It ought to be the business of a joint staff, which would lead to speeding up and would also lead to economy in manpower.
It is quite possible to employ local firms as surveyors to do some of the surveying that has to be done, though many are occupied chiefly by Ministry of Town and Country Planning and it should not be difficult to find sufficient valuers available to do this work. If the organisation as between the Service Departments could be improved so that no delay takes place, there could be economy there, and I am quite sure that the forms which are filled in now with regard to requisition could shortly be made uniform. What difference can there really be if some land is requisitioned by the Admiralty, the War Office or the Air Ministry? There may be small conditions put into the agreement peculiar to one or other of these Departments, but generally the form should be the same. Whilst it has been difficult in the Service Departments to do more than they have done, the blame is not altogether theirs. I feel that this House should not agree to the Second Reading unless we get a firm assurance that there will be definite derequisitioning on a scale which shall be fixed to terminate the whole business by the time the Bill proposes.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I find myself in agreement with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and, quite strangely, in sympathy with the Amendment. This is the most sweetly reasonable Amendment I have ever seen in the names of Conservative Members, and the


only thing about it with which I disagree are the six names attached to it. I must confess, too, that I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and join with him in protesting against the legal jargon in the Bill. That applies specially to the Clause which affects Scotland. Clause 4 contains six or seven lines which are absolutely incomprehensible jargon except to two lawyers in Scotland. When this Bill gets to the Committee stage, I believe that only two lawyers in this House will understand exactly what that Clause means.
I have risen to protest most strongly against the requisitioning of land in Scotland as well as in other parts of the country by the Services. The White Paper tells us that in Scotland 83,000 acres of land are to be used for what has been politely called "practical military training." The hon. Member for Abingdon, who has a more extensive acquaintance with military training than I have, asked whether this training was really so practical. He made the point that we usually prepare for the next war by having a dress rehearsal based on the plans of the last war. According to the White Paper, that is precisely what we are to do during the four and a half years under the terms of this Bill. The White Paper tells us that the Admiralty is to have 20,000 acres. Why on earth does the Admiralty want 20,000 acres? The Royal Air Force is to get 34,000 acres.
We are also told that for battle training and field firing areas there are to be 200,000 acres, for field artillery ranges 170,000, for armoured vehicle driver training areas 35,000, for armoured fighting vehicle and anti-tank artillery ranges 50,000 acres, Royal Engineer training areas 30,000 acres, anti-aircraft practice camps 5,000 acres, small arms ranges 65,000 acres and general training and miscellaneous areas 93,000; a total of 702,000 acres devoted to military training for what? The hon. Member for Abingdon spoke about our enemies of the last war. Surely we do not intend to use 702,000 acres for preparing battle operations for our enemies of the next war? That is not all. There are also 325,200 acres for other purposes.
Scotland is to have even more land devoted to military purposes than ever

before. Warnings came from all parts of the House when during the Debate on the Scottish Agriculture Bill we discussed the effect this was likely to have. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) likened the acquisition of this land to the old Highland clearances, and said that we had a new robber baron, the Secretary of State for War. I am very sorry that the right hon. and gallant Member has left it to me to carry on the attack against the robber baron. The Secretary of State, however, is not really a robber baron. He has rather a dual personality. He is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Dr. Jekyll is the chairman of the Labour Party and Mr. Hyde is the Secretary of State for War, and I hope that in the conflict of these emotions the Secretary of State for War will for old times sake be suppressed by the chairman of the Labour Party, at least in the acquisition of land in Scotland.
The excuses of the White Paper are quite unconvincing. One is that very little land is purely agricultural land but that it is land which cannot be used for ordinary agricultural purposes and is only suitable for grazing. It is a vital point in the arguments of Scottish Members that 23,000 acres of good sheep land in the Cheviot Hills are to be handed over for battle and tank training while we have this food shortage. I protest with as much vehemence as I can command against Scottish land being taken over while the food shortage is so great. Not only the growing of potatoes is involved; there is also the question of sheep. Between 8,000 and 9,000 ewes are to be taken off this land. The Secretary of State for War argued that sheep could feed on the moorlands and mountains when the tanks are in operation, but that is not the opinion of the people in Scotland who understand the position. We are, therefore, right to protest against the acquisition of the 23,000 acres in Roxburghshire and also land in Inverness-shire. Inverness-shire will be turned into practically an armed camp. The local authorities there have protested, and wherever land is to be used for this purpose local authorities will protest.
I, therefore, urge the Secretary of State for War not to be too anxious to defend his new office but to think in terms of the agricultural and economic development of


our country. I hope the Admiralty will give us some explanation why they need 20,000 acres. Surely the Admiralty is not training its sailors on 20,000 acres of land? It is a reflection on this Government that we are now to requisition four times the acreage for war purposes that we had before the war. It implies a necessity for a change in direction of international policy. I know the Secretary of State for War regards it as his obligation to carry out that policy.
Finally, I wish to endorse what has been said by those hon. Members who have put the point of view of the National Trust. The hikers are entitled to go over the mountains and moorlands of Scotland and the Lake District without receiving intimations such as, "This land is for military purposes—keep off the grass." I believe that the desire of the people of this land to have access to mountains is good and should be encouraged. If it comes to it, I would prefer to have sheep on the land instead of tanks; I would prefer to see hikers roaming over our hills than to have gunnery practice. I would say, take the risk. I make this protest on behalf of the people in Scotland who are against the acquisition of Scotland as a military training ground, and I hope the Government will think again and that the Secretary of State for War will use his influence in that direction.

5.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The association of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with the Conservative Party is perhaps the most outstanding feature in this Debate. He has described the Amendment as sweetly reasonable. I venture to offer another description: it is a formidable looking Amendment based on the most slender pretext. The case presented by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is based on the assumption that the 11,000,000 acres—I use rough figures—either held or requisitioned by the Service Departments during the war is still in their possession. Of course, it is quite otherwise, and if hon. Members, with certain exceptions, had read the White Paper carefully, and in particular if the right hon. Member for North Leeds had read Part VIII of the paper,

paragraph 28, he would have realised that far from holding on to that vast acreage which was in the possession of Service Departments in wartime, we have relinquished more than 10 million acres.

Mr. Peake: I never said you had not.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon Gentleman interjects to say that he had not said we had not but, as I have remarked, practically the whole of his case was based on the assumption that we had derequisitioned very little land, if any at all.

Mr. Peake: No, the right hon. Gentleman really is misrepresenting me. I made it perfectly clear that this Paper set out as the postwar requirements of the Services about one million acres, four times as much, I said explicitly, as they occupied before the war.

Mr. Shinwell: That puts the matter in quite a different light. So we have to concern ourselves not with the II million or so acres which was in the possession of the Service Departments before the termination of hostilities, but with a matter of a million acres in all which are used by the Service Departments, some of it Service property which has been in the hands of the Service Departments for many years—I need not go into details because hon. Members must be familiar with the facts—and, in addition, some other land which is required specifically for training purposes.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has concerned himself with the special position of Scotland. He claims to speak for the Scottish people in this connection, but I am bound to tell him that, so far, I have not been made aware of vehement objections either on the part of local authorities in Scotland or representative institutions. So far, I have only been made aware of the objections raised by my hon. Friend, and the speech delivered recently by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). In fact, representations have been made from certain quarters that Scotland is not getting its fair share of what is going. That may be attributable to the compensation provisions upon which requisitioning is based. At any rate, I know that when in the course of recent discussions we had


to indicate an allocation to Wales, for example, which is much higher in proportion than the allocation for Scotland, very serious objections were raised.
My hon. Friend also asked about the position of the Admiralty. If he is anxious to elicit the information, I direct his attention to paragraph 33 of the White Paper, where he will see items which relate not only to the Admiralty but to the Air Force. The Admiralty, for example, require airfields comprising in all 22,700 acres. My hon. Friend would not deny, on the assumption that we require defence for security purposes—I am not so sure that assumption is well-founded——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Shinwell: That, of course, disposes of the matter entirely, because we are at cross purposes.

Mr. Hughes: Of course we are.

Mr. Shinwell: If so, let us settle the matter finally, because my hon. Friend takes a quite pacifist view in this connection and I say to him that I reject that view. I reject it not only as Secretary of State for War—to take up his point—but also as Chairman of the Labour Party, because it so happens that the Labour Party by now has become inured to the need of promoting the utmost security.
Now I will address myself to the very reasonable argument presented by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). In particular, he asked questions about the retention by the Army of some schools. The facts are that the Army has two schools in its possession and our intention is to release these schools by February next. I presume that will be regarded as satisfactory. His next point was that there should be the least possible delay in the decision reached by the Service Departments as regards the need for acquiring land or the right to use land for Service purposes. The hon. Member asked specifically that we should have a sense of urgency at the War Office. I can assure him that nothing would please us more than to be able to come to definite decisions but, unfortunately, we are inhibited by several factors which prevent us reaching decision as speedily as we should like to do.
I should explain what these difficulties are. The hon. Member for Abingdon also

asked whether we could give an assurance that the period during which we would be likely to come to a decision would be telescoped. That was not the language he used, but it is the meaning of what he asked. That entirely depends on the circumstances, and I furnish an illustration of what is meant. We have some land in our possession which it would be foolish to derequisition at once, for the reason that there are unexploded missiles in the territory. Until we can afford satisfactory assurances to all concerned that those missiles have been removed and all danger has disappeared, it is clearly absurd to derequisition that land. That is just one illustration of the difficulties which beset us in coming to a speedy decision as regards any particular piece of land.
I proceed to deal with what is regarded as the substance of the case for the Opposition Amendment. I direct attention to the White Paper, and am grateful to Mr. Speaker for agreeing to a wide Debate on this matter, although there is nothing to prevent the House discussing this subject again if they so desire, subject to proper submissions through the usual channels. It is very desirable that we should not rest on the technical nature of this Bill. I agree at once about the technical jargon; indeed, my right hon. Friend, in his very able presentation of a most complex and technical Bill, agreed that it was difficult to understand.
It is very desirable that we should discuss what after all is the gravamen of the charge against the Service Departments as regards requisitioning of land. If hon. Members will be good enough to turn to page 9, paragraph 32, they will see what are our land requirements. Before I proceed to discuss those land requirements in detail, I wish to establish a vital principle. I know my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire would not agree; we understand each other in this regard. The vital principle is that if we are to have an Army, an Air Force and a Navy, we must afford them adequate training facilities. I think the House would be inclined to accept that as a vital principle. Of course, if the House did decide in its wisdom, or otherwise, that now that two years or more have elapsed since the termination of hostilities the Service Departments are no longer necessary, obviously training facilities would not be required.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the acquisition of 750,000 acres of land for military training be security in preparation for defence against an atomic bomb?

Mr. Shinwell: This is not the occasion for a discussion of high military strategy, and I am not certain that I am competent to reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend. At any rate, this House has agreed over and over again, indeed, since the termination of hostilities, that the Service Departments are still necessary, and that we require an Army, a Navy and an Air Force. On that basis we rest our case.
I agree that the House is entitled to an assurance that we are not asking for too much land. The House is also entitled to an assurance that if we ask for adequate training facilities we do not seek to impair agricultural development, or disturb amenities. I agree that these questions are quite proper questions which hon. Members might be expected to put to myself and my right hon. Friends responsible for the administration of the Service Departments. In all, we are asking for rather more than 700,000 acres of land, and of those 702,000 acres the War Office are asking for 648,000 acres. We are the largest user of land, and, I presume it is because the Army are the largest user that I, in preference to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, am standing at this Box defending the Service Departments, and upholding their demands.

Mr. Peake: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the 702,000 acres he has mentioned is for training only, and that there is a further requirement for a great many other purposes?

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has stated the matter correctly. This 702,000 acres is for training purposes alone. I will break down those figures in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that there is a further requirement. It is stated on page 10 and amounts in all to 325,200 acres for a variety of requirements—Royal Air Force airfields. Admiralty airfields, accommodation and storage, anti-aircraft sites and coastal artillery, Radar installations and Ministry of Supply purposes. We are satisfied that this is a minimum

requirement. If it were not so, we would not come to the House and ask for their consent.
I will deal primarily with the training facilities, and the amount of land we require for those purposes. The fact is that 40 per cent. of our requirement is Service property, acquired by the Services under the Defence Act of 1842, prior to the war itself. So that the amount of land now requested by the Service Departments is a comparatively modest amount. The question is whether this land is actually required. As to that, I have only to say that in comparison with the situation which presented itself before the war, in the sphere of training facilities, there is a vast difference, and I imagine that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will appreciate that fact. Whereas before the war we had firing ranges and territory which was used for vehicle exercises, and for training the "Sappers" and so on, at present, having regard to the experience of the last war, we require land much greater in area for the purposes of exercises with track vehicles, tanks and the like, for bridge building operations and experiments, for artillery practice on a vast scale with guns firing much farther than ever they did before the war, and in particular—and I address myself to this emphatically—for the purposes of training the expanding Territorial reserves which will follow the operation of the National Service Act in 1949.
Of course if the House had decided otherwise, for example not to continue national service, and if in consequence we had to deal with a small compact, well equipped, it may be, Regular Army—although there are difficulties in that regard—it would be different. If we merely had to deal with the Regular Army it would be another story. The House, however, is responsible for a condition of things which makes it essential for us to expand our training facilities so that these Territorial Reservists shall be properly trained, and, therefore, become efficient for the purposes for which—no one can tell—they may be required. That, briefly, is the position.
I should remind the House that the Territorial Reservists will follow, in addition to the volunteer Territorial Force which is gradually expanding, slowly but nevertheless very perceptibly. The Territorial Reservists, when they leave the


Army after their period of national service year by year, will have to be trained over a period of six years. Hon. Members are familiar with the provisions of the National Service Act in this regard. Territorial Reservists must be trained over a period of six years for something like 60 days. Clearly, if that is so, we must have the training grounds for that purpose. That is the justification for the acquisition of land.
It may be argued that we are taking the wrong kind of land, and are dipping into agricultural land, which is required, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) and other hon. Members have argued, and should be used primarily, if not exclusively, for agricultural purposes. The fact of the matter is that not more than 14 per cent. of the land we seek to requisition is agricultural land. I venture to digress to point out the fact, which has apparently escaped the notice of hon. Members, that the amount of land in this country is something like 56 million acres, and of that total 40 million acres are regarded as agricultural land, although not necessarily good agricultural land. Of the 56 million acres in the country, and of the 40 million acres of agricultural land included in that total, we are asking for 702,000 acres in all. Hon. Members can scarcely regard that as unduly serious——

Mr. Turton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong, and what is being asked for is one million acres of which half is agricultural land?

Mr. Shinwell: I have pointed out—it is all in the White Paper—that of the million acres a large proportion—not the major part—is existing Service property. This additional land is mostly required for specific training purposes. Even if the figure is one million acres of land in all, as against 56 million acres of land in this country, 40 million acres of which is agricultural, it can scarcely be argued that these demands are excessive in character. It appears to me to be a matter of whether we are having due regard to the impairment of agricultural development and to amenities—National Trust property, beauty spots in the country and the like—and also whether the procedure for dealing with these matters is expeditious in character, so that firm decisions can be reached at the earliest

possible moment. To these matters, I venture, briefly, to address myself.
It is not the first time that I have encountered difficulties—very heavy weather indeed—in this matter of acquiring land. In my previous dispensation, or incarnation, however hon. Members care to regard it, I encountered a substantial difficulty over opencast operations. Whenever I wanted to develop opencast operations to secure more coal I was lambasted by the people concerned with amenity and by hon. Members in this House because I was interfering with beauty spots and alleged amenities, etc. Eventually I got my way, and we got a little more coal, perhaps not as much as I should have liked to have, but that is by the way. Again I am being attacked, together with my colleagues, because we want to acquire land. Let us see what the facts are. Firstly, we have been at great pains in trying to reach agreement with local authorities. Secondly, we have endeavoured at all times, at any rate, since I went to the War Office—I have no doubt my predecessor did the same—to secure the agreement of the amenity organisations.
Take the case of Dovedale, about which there has been hot controversy. It has been alleged that we are seeking to extend the rifle range in that quarter, for no valid reason. When the matter was brought to my notice I took what I hope Members will regard as the sensible precaution of ascertaining the view of those primarily concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Mr. C. White) and the local authorities with whom he is associated. I asked them to come to my Department and discuss the matter. What is the position about Dovedale? We have not yet reached a firm decision, but I can give the House the assurance that a decision will soon be reached; there will be no delay.
I feel sympathetically disposed to the case which has been presented to me, but we have to consider the safety of the public in relation to these training facilities, for example, as regards firing ranges. The range will not occupy a great deal of land, but for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the public who traverse the territory nearby it is necessary to expand a little, even perhaps a great deal. Subject to protecting the demands


of security for the general public—for the hikers, as they are called, and others who wish to avail themselves of the amenities at the week-end and at other times—I do not want to use more land than is necessary. If my hon. Friends who have approached me on this matter will leave it as I have just put it, I think we can reach a sensible agreement.
Let me take the case presented to me by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. He had approached the War Office about this matter before I went there. When I heard of it, I asked him to come and see me. We discussed the matter quite reasonably; he was exceptionally reasonable about it. I pointed out to him, as regards the Stamford battle area, that we were only acquiring land which had no agricultural value, and that in so far as it possessed any use for grazing and other purposes, we would afford the necessary compensation and exercise the utmost caution in protecting those associated with that particular piece of territory. I think we can reach agreement.
Then let me take the case of the land which we seek to acquire in Wales. There is a formidable proposition, presenting considerable difficulties. My Welsh friends and local authorities and organisations in Wales—North Wales, South Wales and Mid-Wales, particularly Mid-Wales—and hon. Members of this House who are associated with Welsh constituencies, came to see me quite recently. We had a very happy time. I told them that the best way to handle this was to gather together all the people who were interested, the local authorities and other organisations. We selected Shrewsbury as the place where we should meet. I said that I thought the best thing that could happen—though this may not be agreeable to everybody—would be that I should preside over the gathering. My reason was, that, whoever presided, in any event the matter would come back to me, so I might as well get in on the ground floor. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon that if there is delay in that regard, it is not my fault. Over and over again I have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), "When are the local authorities going to get a move on?" They are still discussing it, but as soon as they are ready I will go to Shrewsbury.

I will even go at Christmas or the New Year. The New Year is a very bad time for me to go anywhere, particularly round about Hogmanay.

Mr. James Hudson: Returning to Dovedale, is the Minister willing to consult not merely the local authorities responsible for the Dovedale area, but the local authorities of places like Sheffield and Manchester? For a long time, Dovedale has been regarded as the playground of those centres. Will he take into account the much wider area of local authorities in that case, as he seems to be doing in Wales?

Mr. Shinwell: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have proceeded far beyond the range of consultation. I am about to come to a decision. It may be a very favourable decision, and I hope that he will say nothing that will prevent me from making it. I have received all the advice and guidance on this matter that I think necessary from the people on the spot. I have examined the maps and I have a fair idea of the location.
In the case of Wales, it is true that we are acquiring, or seeking to acquire by requisition—perhaps for ultimate purchase, perhaps only for the purpose of exercising user rights—rather more land in proportion than in any other part of the country. On the other hand, it may well be that as a result of our incursion into the land we seek to requisition or use, that we may be able to improve the amenities instead of destroying them. That is the general position.
I must say a word about the Scottish position in another connection. We are seeking to acquire, in all, about 80,000 acres in Scotland. That is not a great deal——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Eighty-three thousand.

Mr. Shinwell: I did not want to commit myself to the actual figure. In round figures, it is about 80,000.

Mr. Hughes: And more.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all. The suggestion has been made that instead of acquiring so much land in Wales or England, we should have gone up to Scotland and acquired more. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I note that


there is support for that. I suggest that the two hon. Gentlemen go outside and fight it out.

Mr. Medland: What about Dartmoor?

Mr. Shinwell: I will come to Dartmoor in a minute. I always leave Dartmoor to the last. In regard to the Scottish position, one of the reasons why we cannot go to Scotland and acquire so much land is that the land is not satisfactory for training purposes. Also, the weather is more often inclement in that part of the world. In addition, and perhaps this is the most substantial reason, we require much of the land for training the Territorial Reservists. We can hardly be expected to transport large numbers of them from the North, the middle or the West of England, to Scotland. The expense would be excessive and, in addition, there would be considerable transport troubles. That is the short position.
As for procedure, the position is that the War Office—and this applies to the other Service Departments—make their submissions on the basis of schedules determined by the Service Departments through the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. That is the first step. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning refer these schedules to the regional controllers. In turn, the regional controllers discuss the matter with the local authorities. The local authorities take time to consider them, and then they come back to the regional controllers and state their objection. If agreement can be reached, so much the better. The matter is determined finally. But if they fail to reach agreement, and more often than not they do fail, for obvious reasons, the matter goes to the inter-Departmental committee who have to deal with all the facts. Eventually, if necessary, there can be a public inquiry. The machinery for public inquiries is laid down by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
That is the procedure. There is a good deal of circumlocution and, therefore, a certain amount of delay; but that is not attributable to any lack of urgency on the part of any of the Service Departments, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning or even the regional controllers. After all, the local authorities, the people on the

spot, must have a big say in such matters.
I promised to say something about Dartmoor. My hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme) came to see me recently. They did not come together; they came separately. I am bound to say that I said the same thing to both of them.

Mr. Medland: That is what I was afraid of.

Mr. Shinwell: I believe it was very sensible. Anyway, it was agreeable to both—or it appeared to be agreeable, We discussed what land we required in the Dartmoor area. The trouble about the land there is that it is not agricultural in character. It certainly is not of high agricultural value. It is very largely used for grazing for ponies. I do not know whether there are sheep there.

Mr. Medland: Yes, and cattle.

Mr. Shinwell: The proposition I made was that in as much as we intended to use the land, we should make the necessary arrangements to enable the graziers to take their cattle off the territory in reasonable time to prevent any damage being done. Of course, in the event of damage, compensation is paid. I promise to give them ample time by advertising in the local Press and, if possible to use the Western Regional service of the B.B.C. for that purpose also. I do not know whether that is possible, but we will see if it can be arranged.

Mr. Studholme: I would like to mention to the right hon. Gentleman that one cannot say that land on which cattle and sheep can be grazed is not agricultural land.

Mr. Shinwell: I qualified what I said. I said that it had not a high agricultural value. If the hon. Member understood me to say otherwise, I hope that he wilt appreciate that that was not what was meant.
Obviously it is distasteful to proceed with the requisitioning of land, particularly if there is any impairment or disturbance. We who represent the Service Departments, or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, or those associated with the Ministry of Works or the Minis-


try of Agriculture, would be the last to seek these powers unless they were absolutely vital and unless we were certain that this was the minimum requirement. It can be understood that, in doing so, we are anxious to safeguard the interests of the public while, at the same time, seeking to promote adequate national defence. That is the short position. I am not concerned in this Debate with the legal technicalities. They will be dealt with by the Solicitor-General, who obviously is more competent than I am to deal with them. All I venture to do is to make out a case for the requisitioning of this land and to assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon saying so much and, at the same time, so little about the Bill which is under consideration. I think that in the course of his speech, which was interesting in several respects, he mentioned the Bill only twice. This is not, as I see it, the occasion for me to comment upon his observations with regard to the White Paper. We have had an undertaking that we shall have an opportunity of debating it. That undertaking stands, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's interesting discourse. I do not propose to refer to that White Paper to any extent, save to point out that he appeared already to be somewhat on the defensive, and that this Bill is not a Bill which deals with the requisitioning of land, so that when he was seeking to justify the requisitioning of land, he was doing something not affected by this Bill.
This is a Bill dealing with the acquisition of land already requisitioned, join with a number of hon. Members who have spoken in saying that it is a most untidy document, difficult of comprehension to anyone who is not a lawyer, and most lawyers would disagree to some extent as to its effect. We had a most specific pledge from the Home Secretary in 1945 that the period within which the powers contained in the 1945 Act could be exercised, in respect of property held by the Service authorities, would not be extended. That has all gone by the board by this Bill. The Financial Secretary, in introducing this Measure, gave three reasons why the period within which this

power can be exercised should be so prolonged. None of those was touched upon by the Secretary of State for War. I will not repeat those reasons but they did appear to me to be entirely inadequate for such a great extension in time. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said it was not fair to put all the blame on the Service authorities for the delay that has occurred. I agree. But I do think that a good deal of the blame does attach, and that a great deal speedier action could have been achieved, and can be still, in determining what properties are necessary to be acquired in the exercise of the powers contained in the 1945 Requisitioned Land Act. My hon. and gallant Friend said, and it is quite true, that buildings are affected as well as land. It is not just agricultural land, important though that is. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had experience of the difficulty in getting a decision on this sort of matter.
I wrote a few weeks ago to the Minister of Works to secure, for a constituent of mine, the opportunity of purchasing some Nissen huts which were standing on his land, and have been disused since the end of the war, and which he wished to use for agricultural purposes. After the usual interval of several weeks, I received a letter to say that the Air Ministry had not relinquished those Nissen huts and that my letter had been passed to them. After the lapse, once again, of the usual period of several weeks I received a letter from the Air Ministry to say that they had no further need of the huts, and had passed them back to the Ministry of Works for disposal. The matter is still with the Ministry of Works. I consider that that sort of procedure can be accelerated, and that this procedure to which the Financial Secretary referred of slowing down the proceedings so that a decision shall be arrived at as to compulsory purchase can be put largely in reverse. It is an inadequate reason for the extension of the kind which this Bill purports to give.
With regard to Clause 2, I think the powers contained in that Clause are already covered by Clause 84(c) of the Agricultural Bill. With regard to Section 3, which deals with highways, I regarded the Financial Secretary's explanation of the object of that Clause as singularly ingenuous. He said that by putting in


that Clause it would enable members of the public to take advantage of the opportunity of holding public inquiries under Section 15 of the 1945 Act. He rather indicated that really it was for the benefit of people interested in the preservation of footpaths. That is not so at all. It is quite an inaccurate representation of the position. Clause 3 says that where a footpath has been obstructed without the making of an order, then, if an order could have been made for the closing up of that footpath, there will be power under Section 15 of the 1945 Act to close it permanently. I think that puts the position accurately?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated assent.

Mr. Manningharn-Buller: So that where there is in fact a closing up of a footpath under conditions where an order could have been made, but was not, if this goes into the Act, Parliament will have the power to close it permanently. That is a most astonishing proposition. On that argument by the Financial Secretary it is admitted that the closing of a footpath in those circumstances constitutes an illegal obstruction, because there was no order—although one could have been made—to authorise it. It might be possible to get an order at quarter sessions for the closing of a footpath, but if that authority is not obtained it would be illegal. Being an illegal obstruction of the footpath, surely, that amounts to a public nuisance. I refreshed my memory on the law a few moments ago, and I found that a permanent obstruction created upon a highway without lawful authority, and which renders the way less commodious than before to the public, is an unlawful act, and a public nuisance at common law.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not disagree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but would he tell us, as these paths have been closed and in many cases buildings erected on them, what solution he can offer—particularly as it was not the present Government who closed them in the first place?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I can answer that quite speedily. I think it is still open to the right hon. Gentleman to make use of the quarter session procedure. If it will help him I can quote an actual case in which I was engaged where some people who had a gravel pit had the misfortune to remove a whole piece of a

footpath. The path then led to the edge of a cliff, and that whole place was 20 feet deep in water. Nothing could have obstructed the footpath more. We were able to get an order from quarter sessions that the footpath should be closed, and that a footpath which went over dry land, and which was much more commodious, should take its place. I have just suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might perhaps follow that course. I do say that this wide power of permanent stopping up really does not give any protection to the members of the public who are interested in footpaths.
My right hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment to reject the Bill, referred to an observation made by the Home Secretary upon this point in 1945. I would like to refer the House to a few observations made by his Parliamentary Secretary on 26th November this year, when we were discussing the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Then, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
My right hon. Friend indicated, if not in Committee, at any rate in the letter he wrote,"—
that is, a letter to me—
that where it was intended that a temporary stopping up should become permanent, there could be no objection to using the normal procedure, either under this Act, or the old procedure of quarter sessions, and he is prepared to see that that will always be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November. 1947; Vol. 444, c. 2013–4.]
That was on 26th November this year. Power to stop up highways is in the new Town and Country Planning Act, and there is also power, under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, to which I just referred, to stop up highways for open-cast coal and the construction of electricity generating stations. This power contained in Clause 3 is thus quite contrary to the pledges given by the Home Secretary, and is the sort of power which certainly should not be accepted by this House.
We have here, under Clause 1 of this Bill, an extension of the definition of war purposes, and I assume that the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, will, in view of that definition, apply to any land requisitioned either now or in the future for any of the purposes contained in the Supplies and Services Acts, 1945 and 1947. My grave objection to


this Measure is that, as I see it, it must lead to more uncertainty, to more delay, and, by preventing the National Coal Board and other people from making their plans, postpone, and not encourage, the reconstruction of our country.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: The Secretary of State for War said that, if the Army and the other Services are to be trained, they must have land for the purpose. Of course everybody on the Opposition side of the House agrees with that, and disagrees with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State made no reply whatever to the plea made by his hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) that this training ought not to be carried out on National Trust land. I think the country would be surprised if it saw the list of the large number of National Trust properties, all of which have been declared inalienable, which are still under requisition, or, if de-requisitioning is in progress, have not yet been repaired or rehabilitated. All these properties would, of course, otherwise be available for public enjoyment. I want to give three or four examples to show the sort of thing which is going on.
In Norfolk, Scolt Head, which was a fighting vehicle range, has not been in use for two years, but still has not been derequisitioned. Another property in Norfolk, Blickling, was occupied by the Air Ministry, which put up a hutted camp. Here the Aylsham Rural District Council, apparently acting with, authority from the Ministry of Health, took over two of the camps without having informed the National Trust. The same thing happened at Ludshott Common in Hampshire. It is intolerable that the National Trust should not be consulted or even informed before its property is occupied in that way. I might mention that the National Trust successfully resisted the threat to take an immense quantity of shingle from Blakeney Shingle Bank, which would not only have ruined the Blickling property but might have led to extensive flooding.
In Surrey, Frensham Common has been derequisitioned, but not yet put in order. A good deal of damage was done to the

surface, and that is a very serious matter in Surrey, where such a common is very much used by the London public. On another Surrey common, Witley Common, the huts are being used by Poles, and there seems to be every prospect of the Common being so occupied for years to come. In Somerset, there is a different sort of case. The Ministry of Health requisitioned Holnicote House, which is being used as a children's nursery by the Somerset County Council, and the children are nearly all the illegitimate children of black soldiers, a by-product of the war. This house had been let by the National Trust to the Holiday Fellowship. I am not suggesting that these unfortunate children are not just as much deserving of consideration as the Holiday Fellowship, but the point is that occupation by the Holiday Fellowship would be much more in accordance with the purposes of the National Trust than illegitimate children. Finally in Gloucestershire, Shirehampton Park is being used as a store by the Ministry of Food. Surely, two years after the war, National Trust property aught not to be used as a Ministry of Food warehouse.
I agree with the Secretary of State that there are cases where it is very difficult for the War Office to clear out. I would mention, for instance, Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire, where the difficulties of removing vast stocks of ammunition are very great. But this is altogether an exceptional case. In the other cases I have mentioned, and in a number which I have not mentioned, the National Trust, as the hon. Member for Accrington has pointed out, has not been treated with the priority and special consideration to which it is entitled as the trustee of land and buildings which it holds for the public enjoyment. I know perfectly well that the Government wish the National Trust well, but I suggest that it is time they gave up dissembling their love. There is a definite danger that the public will withdraw their support from the National Trust if the Government, in peacetime, remains in possession of, or fails to repair, so many of the National Trust properties.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State for War, had so very little to say about the Bill. It is an


extremely difficult Measure to understand, and I could not help wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman had studied it and its effect, because he did not seem to me to address himself at all to the actual necessity for the Bill at this time. There is no doubt that this Bill is very difficult to understand. Already, the law of requisitioning is not easy to follow, and it seems to me that this Bill makes confusion worse confounded. In my view, this obscurity is not in the long-term interests, certainly of the fanning community, and of the public, and I cannot help doubting whether it is really in the interests of the military users of the land.
The first feature of the Bill is the fact that it extends to military users of land, and puts them on the same footing as economic users, powers of acquisition for a period up to seven years after the war came to an end—a very long period indeed. None of us on this side of the House would quarrel with the appeal of the Secretary of State for War that the Services should not be denied the land which they require for legitimate training purposes. Nor would we wish to deny the need for a lot of the other 300,000 acres referred to in the White Paper. But what we very much doubt is whether this long period of delay is worth while in anyone's interest, because, now that the date has been put off for another five years, we cannot help wondering whether more of these questions, which most of us have had drawn to our attention in our constituencies, will not continue to go on undecided from day to day.
The Secretary of State for War referred to the difficulties of the Service Departments in coming to an understanding about different pieces of land. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, I think, that the Government made no complaint of the slowing down of the acquisition proceedings; but I think that the farming community does make a complaint. We in the farming community have our difficulties just as much as the War Department and the other Service Departments. I think it is up to them to try to understand that they are not the only ones with difficulties and that, by taking more urgent stops to resolve their difficulties, they will help to resolve those of the farming community at the present time.
This Bill is certainly a very poor contribution if it is the latest instalment of top priority for agriculture. There is one example of this in Dorset. In the Isle of Purbeck, a large portion of land is under requisition by the military authorities, and we do not know what its future is to be. Negotiations have been going on for some time. The latest development was that we were advised to await the publication of this White Paper. Meanwhile, a very fine stretch of coast land is denied to a number of people who wish to use it either for farming or for recreational purposes, many of them coming from far to use it. I cannot believe that indefinite delay is really in the interest of anyone. It cannot be in the interest of the military, because it prevents them from carrying on their long-term military development and putting in new installations. It is certainly not in the interest of farmers who have to make plans for the future, if they are to plan efficiently.
I now wish to make a brief reference to Clause 2 of the Bill, which gives the Minister of Agriculture new powers—if, indeed, they are not already covered by the Agriculture Act, which I think they are—to take over land which was formerly in military use, and not only that land, but adjoining land, if he thinks that is necessary. This seems to me to be an additional case where all the surrounding farmers will be placed in doubt as to whether a piece of their land will be needed for this adjustment of boundaries, because the Minister has very wide powers to obtain this land, in addition to that of the camp, in order to make agriculture a success. That is another example of the way in which either woodland owners or farmers will be placed, once again, in a position of additional uncertainty as to the future.
Only a few days ago, we were discussing in this House the question of highways. We find in this Bill that the power to stop up highways is, by quite a different Statute, being continued right up to the end of 1952. These stopped-up highways, cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience, and once again we want to know what the position is. It would be far better in most cases to know the worst at once, rather than to go on hoping when there is no foundation for hope, and when other arrangements for travelling between places should be made.
With regard to Clauses 6 to 10, which deal with compensation, this again, is a matter of some complication. It seems to me that the result of the new formula is going to be that, in certain cases, where there is land of high amenity value, but without very much actual market value, the compensation will be totally inadequate. Unless the Minister of Agriculture thinks it worth while to take over the land and to turn it into agricultural land, there will be tracts of land, which were once fine stretches with footpaths, turned into masses of concrete slabs after Army huts have been removed and the concrete foundations have not.
This may be but a small Measure, but it seems to me to be a singularly inappropriate one. It is certainly not a simple Measure, and it is not one of those streamlined Socialist Measures which hon. Members opposite like to talk about so much. I think the principle at stake—to prolong these wartime powers, as regards actual war purposes, up to a period of seven years after the war has come to an end—is a dangerous one, and I believe it will result in a continuation of uncertainty for the hard-pressed farmers.

6.58 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I only wish to detain the House for a few moments in order to bring forward one special case which is typical of much of the criticism that has been launched against this Bill. I want to apologise to two hon. Members who, I think, might have raised this matter, but the information only came to this House this morning, and, therefore, I could not get into touch with them. It is a good sign that, even in these times, one particular grievance of one company can be put before the House. I think it will appeal very much to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury because, if he can see his way to derequisition this piece of land, it will be a first-class dollar earner.
The land to which I refer is at Wareham where there are clay mines owned by Messrs. Pike Bros. They produce a substance called "ball clay," which is vital as a dollar earner. Ball clay is used in the manufacture of pottery tiles, electrical insulators, etc. I understand that the importance of this raw material has already been recognised by the Board of Trade, and that a representative of that Depart-

ment went there and was most sympathetic about it. I also believe that the Paymaster-General has talked to the firm concerned. Two-thirds of this company's leasehold was requisitioned in 1943 by the R.A.C. for the Eastholme Gunnery Range. Their complaint is this: it was the subject of a local inquiry and the Army proposed to retain their requisition, but the company were not allowed to give evidence at the inquiry. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly look at Section 47 of the White Paper which refers to the powers of calling witnesses. It also says:
The guiding aim will be on the one hand to hear fully all that can be said as to the effect of the Service Departments' proposal on the public interest.
I venture to submit that the derequisitioning of this piece of land is in the public interest, especially, as I said at the beginning, because the export of this raw material can earn dollars. Therefore, I ask that the company be allowed to put its case at a public inquiry as soon as possible before any decision is taken that this piece of land shall still be kept under the control of the War Office, and that in the public interest it should be derequisitioned as soon as possible.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: As the representative of Wiltshire, which must have as much requisitioned and acquisitioned land as any in the country, I hope I may be allowed in a very few sentences to put what I think is the feeling of my constituents on this Bill, more particularly as the Secretary of State for War was clearly quite unaware of the position. My constituents do not for a moment dream of challenging the fact that we must have armed Forces and that they must have land. The Secretary of State for War made an eloquent speech on that topic, but he was pushing at an open door. Nor do we challenge the fact that, with modern developments, the Services must have more land than parallel Forces had before the war. Nor do we in our part of the world challenge the principle—inconvenient as it is for us—that it is, on the whole, least inconvenient if Service requirements can be concentrated in a comparatively few areas. It is very inconvenient to us since we happen to be one of those areas, but we understand and patriotically accept the principle that it


is, on the whole, for the general good and we are also aware, as has been pointed out, that unfortunately the general international situation is less rosy than many people had hoped two years ago.
These points are not our grievances at all, but the point we do make is this. Inconvenience is a very mild word for many of the things we have had to put up with. We have had explosions in Savernake Forest on two occasions which have caused fatal casualties, and aeroplane bombing exercises have taken place around Larkhill which have damaged property. If we cannot escape these inconveniences we are entitled to be given as definite a finality as possible and it is a lack of this which is our great grievance against this Bill. This is not a Bill which says that Service Departments should have land, as one might have gathered from listening to the Secretary of State for War. But it is a Bill—and here the Explanatory Memorandum is more intelligent than the Bill—on these lines. As it now stands, land already used for military purposes was to be released on 24th February, 1948, and the main intention of Clause 1 is to extend that date to 10th December, 1952, for all purposes. That is the main point with which we are concerned, and we are greatly concerned.
For two years we have borne our tribulations, and they were not inconsiderable, because we had great trust in the promises given to this House and to the country by the Home Secretary in October, 1945, and it is an enormous cause of concern to find that those promises of the Home Secretary are of no avail at all. Also, we have been waiting a long time for the White Paper. We hoped it would appear nearly a year ago, but it has appeared only this week, simultaneously with the Bill. It is a matter of concern to us. It has been a long delay. I am not disputing the right of the Services to have land, and for the moment I am not raising the issue whether they are asking for too much land. I would only state the fact that in the White Paper they have, at last, definitely stated how much land they want.
Therefore, if the Home Secretary two years ago could definitely promise the House that this matter could finally be settled in two years—a promise made when nobody knew how much land the

Services would want and nobody could foresee what would be the military requirements and the international situation—now, when the situation is clear and the requirements of the Services are at last clear, why is it necessary to postpone this settlement for this further period to the great detriment of the rights of agriculture? That is the great issue raised by this Bill and the points raised by the Secretary of State for War have nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I would like to reinforce the argument that the real issue is that indicated by the last speaker and that the Bill otherwise is a narrow Bill. This point of the date affects a country like Wales a great deal, where the areas already requisitioned are a good deal larger than either in England or in Scotland. The main points are the proposed alteration in the date and the fact that it gives effect to the extension of the power of the Minister, in dealing with adjoining land, to acquire that land. This causes increasing uncertainty for adjoining owners. If the area was small, or relatively small, it would not matter very much, but the area is large—and I am not entering into an argument on the merits, whether they should have that amount of land or not, because I do not imagine that comes within the scope of this Bill.
That power leaves the adjoining owners in complete uncertainty about what is going to happen to their land. That is the problem, apart from the actual quantity of the land taken; it is the uncertainty with regard to their greater areas which seems to me a point of importance in a small country where a relatively large amount of land has been taken. There is another point. A Bill like this, drafted in this form, cannot be understood merely by reading it. This legislation by reference becomes very complicated and very difficult to follow even with weeks of going through it. How can owners and other people affected possibly hope to know what the situation is by any attempt to follow this Bill?

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I think if I were on trial for neglecting my children I would choose the Financial Secretary to the Treasury


as advocate on my behalf because he has a kindly, evasive manner which makes one think he is the last person in the world intentionally to neglect children. No doubt at my trial I would also choose to have a completely irrelevant diversion from the Secretary of State for War. The position with which we are dealing in this Bill, and it has been obscured a great deal of the time, is that there has been great procrastination in the release of land, and, what has not been mentioned up to now in the restoration of war damaged land, since the war. I was a member of a subcommittee presided over by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in 1945, and Members on the other side of the House were with us in that Committee. We unanimously recommended at that time that there should be a review of the use of land by the Services and a plan made for derequisitioning. The fruit of that recommendation we received last Friday with the Votes—the White Paper.
Why has there been this tremendous delay? The Secretary of State for War talked as if he had been very quick in derequisitioning his land, and played about with that figure of II million acres. Really, it was an attempt to befog this House—accidentally, no doubt. The II million acres he was talking about was acreage held under Defence Regulation 52, under which large areas of this country were set aside for training, and were used occasionally when we had some large exercise in the war. If we take the Army's record in this matter, we find that at the time of the Report of the Select Committee the Army was holding 600,000 acres plus 235,000 that it owned—835,000—and that in June this year they had reduced that from 835,000 to 639,000. I would maintain that from the point of view of the Army that is an inadequate reduction, from the amount of land the Army had when we were still fighting both Germany and Japan, to the amount of the second figure two years after the end of the war.
The Air Ministry have a far worse record. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary of State for War is here in his place. There were 600 airfields owned or requisitioned during the war. When we reported in March, 1945, 22 had been derequisitioned. The last figure that was given in this House—that was given on 11th July this year—showed that the total

then of airfields handed back was 77–77 out of boo airfields that were requisitioned. That, in my view, is a very shameful record for the Air Ministry to have. As to the acreage the Air Ministry had requisitioned, at the time of our report the acreage was 253,000—at March, 1945; in November, 1947, that acreage had dropped only to 200,000. In the White Paper we are told that they will be requiring 34,000 acres. If that is the sum total of their requirements now, why is it that in the past two and a half years this Government have done so little about derequisitioning what is in most cases the best agricultural land in the various districts? It is not an answer to say "We allow sheep to graze on certain portions of those airfields while the land is held under our requisitioning." Most of these airfields were taken from the best arable land, that had been drained at considerable expense by the owners and occupiers, and those large areas of land could be feeding today the people of Britain, if the Government had been more active about derequisitioning it.
I want to give only one more set of figures to present the picture clearly. At the present time, it would appear from answers to Questions recently, that there are under requisition by the Services 1,688,000 acres of land. I am not going to enter into the details of the White Paper, for I do not believe that they are relevant to the Debate, but I would mention as an illustration of what is required that we are told in the White Paper that the Services will be requiring just over a million acres. Therefore, through lack of planning in this respect—planning of de-requisitioning, as they were ordered by the Select Committee of this House in March, 1945—the Government have wasted some 600,000 acres of land. The Secretary of State for War, in speaking of this land, spoke airily, and said that only 14 per cent. was agricultural land. I found it very hard to reconcile that considered statement by the Secretary of State for War with an answer given by the Minister of Agriculture on 10th November, when he said—of the million acres occupied by the Armed Forces 550,000 acres, 55 per cent., was devoted to agriculture in 1938–55 per cent., not 14 per cent.; and that is, I believe, the true perspective in this matter.
We have had no justification yet from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or from the Secretary of State for War of why the Government think it will take four and a half more years to choose by acquisition what land they will be requiring for their purposes as set out in the White Paper. Why has 1952 been inserted in the Bill? If the Government had come down tonight, put on a white sheet, and said, "We have been negligent; we have forgotten what a Committee of the House reported in 1945; we have had many changes in our office holders; give us another year," if they had come in that spirit, with a certain amount of sackcloth and a little bit of ash, then I am sure the House without a dissentient would have given them an extra year to tidy up the mess they have made.
But I hope the House will not give them four and a half years, for that is in direct contradiction to the pledge given by the Home Secretary. It is a surprising fact, that I hope will be duly recorded, that the Home Secretary who was here when the Bill was introduced, directly the Debate began went out, and has not reappeared at all; and those who know the Home Secretary know that he is constantly in the House of Commons, that he is nearly always here listening to the Debates. Why is he not today? Is it because the Home Secretary, who has in the past always been a great upholder of the amenities of rights of way is not entirely satisfied with this Bill?
Let us consider the question of National Parks, a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Spearman). How can these rights be enjoyed if 168,000 acres of National Park land are taken over by the Services and not released—37,000 in that small area of the North Riding of Yorkshire? What did the National Parks Committee say on that matter? In their report they made it perfectly clear that the whole plan of the National Trust would have been rendered nugatory if that area of 168,000 acres remained under derequisition. When the Solicitor-General replies I hope he will deal with that point, which will be found at Paragraph 151 of the Hobhouse Committee Report:
It would be no exaggeration to say that the appropriation of a number of the particular areas now listed for acquisition by the Service Departments would take the heart out of the proposed National Park areas in which they are cited, and in certain cases render our pro-

posal for the designation of individual National Parks entirely nugatory.
I claim that that matter requires a specific answer. If a National Parks scheme is to be followed, it is no good having the sort of situation which occurred until quite recently in an area in my constituency, where those who went along a road in a part of the National Park were met with anti-tank gunfire. That is not the way to deal with the National Parks of England, and it is regrettable that a large area is still being held for that purpose. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has stressed the point in regard to the National Trust, and I hope the Solicitor-General will tell us his attitude towards National Trust property.
On the question of Clause 3, dealing with the stopping up of highways, it appeared to me that the Financial Secretary did not realise what a breach of the pledge given by the Home Secretary he was committing. Under this Clause the Government are taking two powers. First, where, in the heat of war, some Service Department has improperly blocked up a highway, they are taking power permanently to stop up that highway. Secondly—which also comes in Clause 2—whereas the Home Secretary gave a pledge to this House that the Government would not use that power permanently to stop up highways after 1948, the Government say that in all cases they will retain that power and use it, if they so wish, until 1952.
The Financial Secretary challenged us, and said, "Well, tell us your alternative." The alternative in this matter is perfectly clear, and comes in the Report of the Special Committee on Footpaths and Access to the Countryside, published only recently, paragraph 114 of which says:
We recommend that the existing statutory powers to close or divert rights of way set out in Acts should not ordinarily be used by the Government Departments concerned, and that instead application to a Quarter Sessions should be made in accordance with the procedure recommended above. We also hope that Parliament in future will not pass into law Clauses in public or private Bills authorising the closure or diversion of rights of way, other than by means of the procedure which we have outlined … except where the closure or diversion is fundamental to a private Act.
That is a very clear recommendation. I can never understand the use of appointing committees to examine such questions,


and when they make a direct recommendation like that tearing up, not only past pledges given by Home Secretaries, but also the recommendations of these committees. The proper method, in law, is to use the method of quarter sessions, thereby giving publicity to the proposal, and also ensuring that anybody who objects can appear and have his objection heard, and that the order will not be given unless there is substitution for the highway which is being stopped up. The trouble about these highways, in the National Parks areas and elsewhere in Britain, is that no substitution will be given by the Government Department or the War Works Commission.
I have two complicated points which I hope the Solicitor-General will clarify, the first of which deals with Clause 2. I say at once that I have no great objection to giving the Minister of Agriculture power to acquire land to readjust boundaries if he wants that power. However, when a clear power was given by Parliament only a few months ago, in Section 84 (1) (c) of the Agriculture Act, which gives a wider power than is contained in this Bill, I cannot understand why Parliament has been troubled by asking for this power again. I hope the Solicitor-General will make that clear. I raise the point in no sense of hostility to this Bill, but we do not want additional powers. What with the Town and Country Planning Act and the Agriculture Act, I should have thought there were sufficient powers.
Clause 6, which deals with compensation, gives a higher level of compensation—as it clearly should—when land is being taken, not in a wartime period, and great loss is suffered by the dispossessed owner and occupier. However, I do not believe this Clause deals adequately with the position. Under this Bill owners and occupiers will be dispossessed from their farms, or from segments of their farms, and will suffer a great deal of what I would call consequential loss for which they will receive no compensation. Let me give the House an illustration. Where there is opencast coalmining, frequently half a farm is taken, and the owner is put to great damage by reason of the resultant severance. Also, he has to rent alternative land in the neighbourhood for his stock. When he goes into the market today for alternative land to rent,

especially in opencast coalmining areas, he has to pay a good deal more than the compensation rent allowed under this Bill. I hope the Solicitor-General will approach this matter in a friendly spirit, to see if the compensation provision cannot include compensation for consequential loss suffered by the owner or occupier as a result of requisition.
I appeal to the Government, in regard to both the Bill and the White Paper, to try to centralise the work of these requisitioning authorities. A great deal of the delay in requisitioning involved in this Bill has come from the habit of handing property which is vacated by one Department to another Department—the Ministry of Works—a sort of battledore and shuttlecock goes on between the Departments, and all that time the land is sterilised from productive use. I can take Ministers to many areas in my constituency, and show them acres of land which could be used for good agricultural purposes. In some cases there are huts on the land, and in other cases, curiously enough, there are no huts, but in all cases the land is requisitioned, with the taxpayer having to pay compensation rentals, while no Government Department can come to a decision whether derequisitioning shall take place or not.
Earlier on this year, when the Government announced that they were going to publish a White Paper on the derequisitioning of land, and the first thing that I learnt from the War Office was that in my constituency all derequisitioning had been stopped until the White Paper had been issued. That was a very wasteful decision. This took place at the beginning of the summer, when it was vital that a great deal of the land should be used for our food production. The time has come when we must re-orientate our views on this question of the holding of land by Government Departments.
I am delighted that the Home Secretary has made a belated appearance. I hope that he will tell us why that very happy promise, in 1945, which was so acceptable to us, has now been broken by this Measure. He will recollect Section 5 of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, which he introduced in response to an appeal I made to him on 19th October, 1945. That Section is now being repealed by this Government of which, I believe, he still remains a Member. This is a very


sad day, and I hope that the Home Secretary will brief the Solicitor-General with an explanation on that matter.
As I was saying, we have to re-orientate our views on this holding of land by the Service Departments. The priority today is food production. It is admitted by all that the Services must have adequate ground on which to train, but I believe that the land which is being used for training by one branch of the Services could equally well be used the next day by another. I have never understood why there has to be one firing range for the Royal Air Force, another for the Royal Air Force Regiment and another for the Army. I believe that the Services are very wasteful in that manner. Let us admit that they have to have adequate ground for training, but after that, the land should not go to the Ministry of Works, or to the Ministry of Supply, but to agriculture. The land should be handed back for food production, which means that we shall get a great deal of extra productivity. It is because I believe the Government have bungled this matter by their ineptitude that I and my hon. Friends will be forced to vote for this seasonal and very reasonable Amendment.

7.34 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskiee): The criticism of this Bill has largely centred upon an attack on the Service Departments, either in respect of land which they have intimated in the White Paper they require for training and other operational purposes, or on the footing that the Service Departments should have made up their minds more quickly whether the land already in their possession is to be permanently retained or not. The former of these two grounds of criticism does not come within the purview of this Bill. The requirements set out in the White Paper are requirements which have been carefully worked out by reference to the Forces to be maintained. We are not now discussing that. As the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) pointed out, if we have defence Forces, they must be adequately trained, and that is particularly germane to the first criticism. I shall not venture to add anything to what has been said on that aspect of the subject.
I am not sure that I can usefully add to what has been said by the Secretary

of State for War on the criticism that the Service Departments should have made up their minds more quickly. He pointed out what is a very crucial consideration, that in the two and a half years which have passed since the war ended 10 million acres of land in possession of the War Department have been handed back. That indicates considerable expedition in dealing with this problem. There are still one million acres which are the subject of consideration, and, as is apt to happen, these remaining quantities of land involve the most difficult cases for decision. I would simply add to what has been said, that a considerable cause of delay in dealing with the remaining land under requisition is the desire to give full effect to the promise given by the Prime Minister in November, 1946, with regard to the holding of public inquiries where necessary.
If hon. Members will refer to Part IX of the White Paper, they will see set out the elaborate machinery for deciding whether land shall be kept under permanent possession or not. First, there is the regional consultation by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, then the matter goes to the inter-Departmental committee, and afterwards, if the differences cannot be resolved up to that stage, there is a public inquiry. That, of necessity, takes a considerable amount of time, and I feel sure the House will agree that some delay must inevitably elapse if that procedure is to be followed, especially, when I inform Members that some 870 proposals for training areas and so on have been submitted to the inter-Departmental committee, and that in addition there are some 400 proposals for the retention of land for accommodation and stores.
That means that over 1,200 proposals in all require investigation. A great deal of work has been done on that already, but if investigation is to be carried out properly, and real endeavours are to be made to obviate and meet the objections which have been advanced from various quarters, particularly from the amenities societies, it is bound to take a long time. That is a considerable reason for the delay which has ensued. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is no one so anxious to deal with these outstanding matters and get them cleared up as the Service Departments themselves. The Financial Secretary also reminded the


House of the present stringency in regard to materials and labour, which has necessitated putting certain urgent tasks before the task of clearing up war works and the task of rehabilitation, important though those tasks are.
I should like to comb now to the more legalistic aspect of this particular ground of complaint. The Defence Acts will be used for the acquisition of training areas, and the powers we are seeking to extend in point of time by this Bill are very largely powers which conduce to peacetime purposes, and not to wartime purposes. I would like to give a few examples of that. We are extending the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. That Section gives power to acquire land permanently in order to rehabilitate it so that it can be handed back for peacetime purposes. It is not for a wartime purpose at all; it will conduce to the building up of the nation again in peacetime. Very much the same can be said about Section 5 of that Act, which gives power to the Ministers who are named in that Section to acquire land permanently for the purpose of seeing that the war works carried out on the land will inure to the benefit of the community for peacetime purposes.
For example, if a factory has been built on the land the Minister can acquire the land to preserve the value of the factory for the community in general. That, again, is largely a peacetime purpose. The same can be said of Section 29, which gives power to the Minister to go on land to remove war works with a view to rehabilitating the land for peacetime use. We are asking for prolongation of the time during which these powers can be exercised. We are asking the House to say that we shall have assistance in the readjustment of our national life to peacetime conditions.
As has been said, it is arguable, as a matter of law, that we already possess a number of these powers, but we thought it right that we should come here and obtain what we want openly by this Bill, instead of relying on what may be a legal subtlety in interpreting the powers which Parliament has not so far intentionally given.

Mr. Peake: As far as the peacetime user in the future is concerned, surely

the Government have already taken powers under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. All this Bill does is to extend the period during which compulsory powers can be exercised in regard to future military users.

The Solicitor-General: We have powers to deal to a large extent—I am not saying entirely—with war works for the peace purposes I have indicated. Under the 1945 Act, we can already do a good many of the things for which we are seeking the extended powers conferred by this Bill. We thought it right and fair to the House to say that we want to extend these specific powers for the extra period which is indicated in the Bill.
If we do not have these extended powers what will be the position? Either we should have to telescope the procedure for inquiries, and give immediate notice to treat in a large number of cases—that is, curtail the inquiries promised in the Prime Minister's statement which, I feel sure, everyone would like to see thoroughly carried out—or we must, in many cases, now relinquish properties held on requisition with the knowledge that it may be necessary hereafter to use our powers under the Defence Acts to retake them into our possession.
That is what the position would be if we did not have the extra powers for which we are now asking, and it will be agreed, I feel sure, that that would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Land would have to be derequisitioned, and those to whom it was handed over would have to be informed that it might be necessary later to retake it for a training area, or something of that sort. I am sure that no voice would defend that position, which would be inconvenient and unfair to those persons to whom requisitioned land was handed over. That is the case I make by way of supplementation to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War about the first purpose sought to be achieved by this Bill.
I now want to pass to Clause 3, which deals with highways, and to which several Members have directed their attention. This Clause is limited in its scope, and I feel that those Members who attacked it have not borne in mind the full significance of the limitations which are imposed on the power which we are now seeking to take. I ask hon. Members to


conceive this position: In the early stages of the war, in the rush and hurry of that time, it was overlooked that there might be a path, or something of that sort, which could be stopped up legally under Defence Regulation 16 or 52, but in respect of which an order was not made under either of those regulations.
From time to time that did happen, and it was unavoidable that it should happen. Where a path has been in fact stopped up, and an order could have been made under Defence Regulation 16 or 52 to stop it up, and where a factory has been built over it, or the area through which the path ran had been completely built over, or used for some other purpose, we wish, by this Clause, to use the powers of Section 15 of the 1945 Act to do what could have been done if an order had been made under either of those Defence Regulations. If only that had been done, as it could have been done, it would have been lawful to stop up the pathway. By inadvertence it was not done. It would, however, be difficult, and not in the public interest, to go back on what was done or omitted to be done by inadvertence.
It is most important to bear in mind that we do not seek to take powers without there being some check upon them. The Minister cannot exercise the powers which we seek to confer on him by Clause 3 unless he goes through the procedure which is prescribed by Sections 15, 16, and 17 of the 1945 Act. In the event of an objection being raised the matter must be referred to a semi-judicial body, the War Works Commission, which can impose a veto. The proposals have to be advertised. Persons wishing to raise objections must be given a hearing, and the matter must be carefully investigated before the Minister is allowed to proceed with his intention to stop up what may be a small bypath which has been completely overlooked, and which has not been used for a long time.
I have listened to the criticisms, and I hope that Members, when they are reminded of the circumstances in which it is desired to use that power, and the purposes for which it is intended to use it, will feel that those criticisms have not been justified——

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain Subsection (2)?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly. I am sorry if I have given the impression that I had overlooked that Subsection. The hon. Member, and other Members, asked whether the same power could not be exercised by the Minister of Agriculture under Section 84 of the Agriculture Act, 1947.

Mr. Turton: Surely it is under Clause 3.

The Solicitor-General: Clause 2 deals with agricultural land.

Mr. Turton: My question relates to Subsection (2) of Clause 3 which deals with the rights of way since 1939. I do not think the Minister has dealt with that point.

The Solicitor-General: That is a consequential power. If hon. Members would look at the Section of the Act of 1945 which is referred to, they would see that it is really complementary to the power which is taken in the earlier part of the Bill. Perhaps I may go on to Clause 2, and to deal with the questions which were asked from the point of view of agriculture.
It is true that in point of pure terminology it can be said that the powers conferred by Clause 2, by way of amplification of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Act of 1945, overlap to some extent at any rate with the powers conferred upon the Minister of Agriculture by Section 84 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The reason why we have not sought to use the powers given to us by Section 84 is that we thought it would not be right and fair to take advantage of what really is only a technical point. Section 6 of the Act of 1945 which gives the powers which were to be exercised in certain specific cases, is subject to the check that, in the event of objection, the matter has to be referred to the War Works Commission.
We thought it would not be right to avoid the operation of that check and to go, as it were by a back way, and to do under Section 84 of the Agriculture Act, which was designed for an altogether different purpose, what we now propose to do under Section 6 of the 1945 Act, as amended, subject to the check, which is there provided, of reference to the War Works Commission. We thought it would be right and proper again to be frank and overt about it, and to make it clear


that for this purpose we propose to use Section 6.
I was asked what would happen administratively in these cases. What is contemplated, when we use Section 6 of the 1945 Act, as amended by Clause 2, is that ordinarily speaking, when land is acquired for agricultural purposes and for rehabilitation for agricultural purposes, it would be acquired by the Service Minister, say the Secretary of State for Air in the case of land which had an aerodrome upon it. It would be acquired by him in consultation administratively with the Minister of Agriculture. Of course, Section 6 has already been used upon a number of occasions. Land has been acquired permanently in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and has been passed over to the Agricultural Executive Committees.
As the House knows, I believe, the Land Commission which is provided for by the 1947 Act has now been set up. It has only just been set up and it may well be that it will be found convenient that land so acquired by one of the Service Ministers, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, would be managed or disposed of on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture by the Land Commission. That is the general way in which it is intended that the Clause should work. I pass now to the question asked with regard to open-cast mining.

Colonel Clarke: Before the Solicitor-General leaves the question of severance may I ask him whether we are to understand that Sections 84 and 87 of the Agriculture Act will not be used at all in that connection?

The Solicitor-General: That is so. When a case arises which falls fairly within the purview of Section 6 of the Act of 1945, as amended by Clause 2, and when the circumstances are such as are there described, that Section will be used, and not Section 84 of the Agriculture Act.
With regard to opencast mining, the main problem of where to operate arises independently of the Bill, and this Bill has nothing whatever to do with it. The subsidiary problem put to me was this. An agricultural unit is partially acquired, and the partial acquisition affects adversely the operation of the whole agricultural unit. It was said that compensation should be available in circum-

stances of that sort to cover the loss which ensues. That is not covered in this Bill. In fact, consultations have been going on in consequence of representations made on behalf of the National Farmers' Union. So far, I am not in a position to say that any decision has been reached on that matter, but I think it right that I should go on to add that I do not want to be taken as holding out any hope at all that a favourable decision will be reached. In point of fact, there are many serious difficulties. One is that it is a basic principle of war compensation that it should not be extended to cover consequential loss of profits and earnings. That is how that matter stands at the moment.
Those are the main points which were raised throughout the course of the Debate on this small but admittedly technical Bill, which is limited in scope. It is not a Bill which is altogether easy to understand, I frankly confess, but it is a Bill of a kind which it is almost impossible to draft in any other form. There are two minor' points I would touch upon before I sit down. On the question of rental compensation it was asked whether the maximum of a 60 per cent. increase over 1939 value was appropriate. No doubt this question of compensation will be further probed by hon. Members in Committee. We feel that it is a reasonable increase. The object of the maximum or ceiling in respect of rental compensation is to cut out scarcity value.
The figure of 60 per cent. is computed upon what we regard as a reasonable basis, taking into account the fact that building costs have increased roughly speaking 100 per cent. while the value of money has decreased roughly 20 per cent. If we assume a 5 per cent. return upon £100 spent before the war, that £100 will now be represented by £200 while the 5 per cent. will be represented by 4 per cent. We should have to make a contrast between the prewar return of £5 and the postwar return of £8. That is roughly how we fixed upon 60 per cent. as being a not unreasonable maximum to choose in the circumstances.
The final point, made by the right hon. Member for North Leeds was with regard to pipe-lines. The right hon. Member adverted to the fact that compensation is provided but he said it might well be the case that the owners of land through which pipe-lines lay would not know that


the pipe-lines were there. In practice they would know, but in any case a safeguard against their not knowing is that Clause 13 provides that the existence of the pipe-line must be registered in the local Land Charges Register. It would, in point of fact, of necessity be brought to the notice of the owner of the land.
I have endeavoured to cover those points which seemed to be left over, and to be of a rather more technical nature, after the full address which was delivered by the Secretary of State for War. A

Bill of this sort will require further scrutiny during the Committee stage, where the more detailed aspects of it will be examined. It has a limited scope, but it is, nevertheless, a useful and necessary Measure, and I hope that the House will now decide to give it a Second Reading.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 108.

Division No. 47.
AYES.
[7.58 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mann, Mrs. J


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Marquand, H. A.


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Evans, A (Islington, W.)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Austin, H Lewis
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Medland, H. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Fairhurst, F.
Messer, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Farthing, W J
Middleton, Mrs L


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.


Acland, Sir R
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.


Bacon, Miss A
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R


Baird, J
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Balfour, A.
Gallacher, W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Barstow, P. G.
Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Mort, D. L.


Barton, C.
Gilzean, A.
Moyle, A.


Battley, J. R.
Glanville, J E (Consett)
Murray, J. D.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Goodrich, H. E.
Nally, W.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Beswick, F.
Grey, C. F.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grierson, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Blenkinsop, A
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Boardman, H
Guy, W. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hale, Leslie
Orbach, M


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Buchanan, G.
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Burden, T. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, T. F.


Callaghan, James
Hoy, J.
Perrins, W.


Carmichael, James
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Chater, D
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cluse, W. S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Coldrick, W
Janner, B.
Price, M. Philips


Collick, P.
Jay, D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pryde, D. J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Randall, H. E.


Corlelt, Dr J.
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Crossman, R H S
Kenyon, C.
Rankin, J.


Daines, P.
Key, C. W.
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslam)
King, E. M.



Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leslie, J. R.
Rhodes, H.


Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richards, R.



Lindgrsn, G. S.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Deer, G.
Longden, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lyne, A. W.
Robertson, J J (Berwick)


Dobbie, W
McAdam, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dodds, N. N.
McEntee, V. La T
Royle, C


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H G
Sargood, R.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGovern, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Durbin, E. F. M.
Maclean, N (Govan)
Sharp, Granville


Dye, S.
McLeavy, F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P.


Edelman, M.
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)




Simmons, C. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Skeffington, A. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Skinnard, F W
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wigg, George


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkes, L.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Tiffany, S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Snow, J. W.
Timmons, J.
Willey, O. G (Cleveland)


Solley, L. J.
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Sorensen, R. W.
Tolley, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Sparks, J. A.
Ungoed-Thomas L
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Stamford, W.
Usborne, Henry
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Steele, T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Woodburn, A.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Walker, G. H.
Woods, G. S.


Stross, Dr. B.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wyatt, W.


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Warbey, W. N.
Zilliacus, K


Swingler, S.
Watson, W. M.



Sylvester, G. O.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, A. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Collinridge and




Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K


Assheton, Rt, Hon. R.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Prescott, Stanley


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Howard, Hon. A.
Rayner, Brig R.


Beechman, N. A.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L


Bower, N.
Kendall, W. D.
Sanderson, Sir F


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Byers, Frank
Linstead, H N
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. M.


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Selywn (Wirral)
Spence, H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank; Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. O. E
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Davidson, Viscountess
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


De la Bère, R.
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Donner, P. W.
Mellor, Sir J
Wheatley, Col M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Duthie, W. S.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Erich, F. J.
Nicholson, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
York, C


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gates, Maj E. E.
Odey, G. W.



George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Major Conant and




Commander Agnew.


Bill accordingly read a Second time.


Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Friday next.—[Mr. Popplewell.]


Question put, and agreed to.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to continue certain provisions of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, to make permanent certain other provisions thereof, and otherwise to amend that Act; to amend, the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as respects compensation for the taking of possession of land to make further provision, by the amendment of those Acts and otherwise, as respects the maintenance and use of certain oil pipe lines and the compensation therefor; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament——

(a) of any increase in consequence of the said Act of the present session in the sums so payable under the said Act of 1939 or the said Act of 1945; and
(b) of any other expenses incurred under the said Act of the present Session by a Minister of the Crown (including the Admiralty and the Board of Trade)."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

8.9 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I do not think the Financial Secretary would wish this Motion to pass without my asking him a question about the approximate amount of money which is involved in relation to oil pipe-lines. I intended to raise this point during the previous Debate. I would like to have some information about the cost of annual maintenance. The Financial Secretary will remember that during the previous Debate there was a considerable amount of criticism of the way in which the oil pipe-lines were being kept, and I feel sure that he would like to put our minds at rest, first, that they are being properly looked after, and secondly, in regard to the amount of money involved.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can give the hon. Gentleman this assurance: They are being looked after; but I am sorry that I cannot tell him the amount. We are working in this matter with a very large number of owners, and it is quite impossible, at this date, to indicate just what the cost will be. I can assure him that it will not be an extravagant cost, or any more than it would have been under the original Act,

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep me informed of the cost? So far as their being looked after is concerned, I know that they are being looked at, because an hon. Friend of mine informed me that he had looked at them, and nothing whatever was being done; their condition was very bad. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, before the next stage of this Resolution, will, at any rate, be able to assure us that he has put someone to look after one particular point—that is to say, the end of the pipe-line, which was mentioned earlier. I was astonished that the Minister did not leap to his feet to deny the accusations made, and I would like an assurance that this matter is being looked into in view of those accusations.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

COAST PROTECTION (CORNWALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Harlyn Bay (Cornwall) Coast Protection Order, 1947, made by the Minister of Health under Section of the Coast Protection Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th November, he approved."—[Mr. A. Bevan.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: On a point of Order. Can you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, tell me whether this and a similar order relating to Rock Bay, Cornwall, are being taken together or separately?

The Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if they were both taken together.

Mr. Marshall: I fully agree that it would be better if they were taken together, but could they be moved separately at the end of the Debate?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I was about to suggest that, as the orders raised exactly the same points, they might be taken together for the convenience of the House. These are the third and fourth orders to be made under the Coast Protection Act, 1939. The first, Newhaven, Sussex, was made in 1940. The second, Happisburgh and Bacton, Norfolk, was made in 1942. The object of the orders is to prohibit the removal of beach


materials, within defined areas—Harlyn Bay and Rock Bay—to protect the coast of Cornwall against erosion and to prevent damage to land in that county by the action of the sea.
Complaints have been received from various persons that the removal of sand by hauliers was leading to erosion. After investigation, the Minister of Transport, who was then responsible, formed the prima facie opinion that orders should be made in respect of both bays. Let me say at once, lest there should be any misapprehension, that under the Act it is necessary for the Minister to make up his mind whether a prima facie case is made out before an inquiry can be held. There is no question at all of prejudging the issue. It is laid down for him by statute that he proceeds in that way, and if, after the inquiry has been made, he is satisfied that the grounds are sufficient, then the order is made.
I am satisfied on the reports that have been made, and on the inquiry, that there is erosion in both these bays, threatening property. It is true that there is a difference of opinion about what causes the erosion. Technical advice which I have obtained makes it quite clear that the erosion is caused by the removal of sand. I would, however, like the House to consider some aspects of this matter which are not frequently brought before it. I have been asked, as the House will recollect, on many occasions—almost every Thursday—whether the Government propose to bring in a Bill to deal with coast erosion. It is extremely serious in some parts of the country, and we are already taking action, because we do not want to avoid spending a few thousand pounds now, and, as a consequence, have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds later.
The great difficulty about coast erosion is that unless precautions are taken early, there is a danger of rapid and most extensive deterioration. It is also established by those competent to speak on these matters that coast erosion takes place in one place because of failure to take precautions in another. I have seen instance after instance where a local authority having foreshore powers have put up a breakwater affecting the direction of the current which scoops out a pebble protection from a groin somewhere else. The

result is that very often—I have seen it myself—most serious damage is done as a consequence. When we come to deal with this matter, as we shall have to deal with it—I cannot go far on this matter tonight without contravening the Rules of the House—we shall find that we shall have to take action over a wider scale than is within the province of any particular authority.
There is no doubt in the minds of those who advised me on this matter that the taking away of sand from these bays destroys the cushion which protects the land, exposes it to erosion and threatens property. I most seriously represent to hon. Members that when I am making attempts to prevent the land from falling into the sea, I should not be opposed to attack by some people who have vested interests which are involved at the moment. It is more important to protect the interest of Britain as a whole than those of any particular person. It may be that one of the reasons why we have not had legislation on this matter before is that there has been great difficulty in deciding between the particular and the general interests in these matters.
The position in this part of Cornwall is peculiar. The right to remove sand from the foreshore is provided by an Act of James I. It was made clear that all persons and residents dwelling in the counties of Cornwall and Devon could take sand up to the full sea mark for the betterment of their land, the reason being, I gather, that there is a great deal of lime in the sand. Therefore, it is valuable for agricultural purposes. There is all the difference between conveying sand from a bay in the time of James I with a bullock cart and conveying it nowadays by lorry. It is the perfect example of what my more pedantic friends would call the dialectic. The change in the technique of transport has transformed an ancient right into a menace. The amount of sand that can be transported by ox cart or by heavy draught animals was negligible compared with the amount of sand that can be removed by modern lorries going there day after day.

Mr. D. Marshall: Mr. D. Marshall indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: I see the hon. Member shakes his head but I have seen——

Mr. Marshall: I will develop the point which I had in mind, but it has nothing to do with what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about at the moment.

Mr. Bevan: The shake was apparently irrelevant. Furthermore there is also this difficulty, that the amount of sand that could be conveyed in those days was not only much smaller, but it could not be conveyed such distances as are possible today. In those days it would hardly pay the farmer away back in the hinterland to go to the coast with his horse and cart for sand, but the lorries of today can go much farther. I am not quite certain that they always convey sand for agricultural purposes. We would need to have an espionage system to pursue some of these lorries. It is extraordinary the amount of lime sand that some of the Cornish farmers appear to be in need of, and I am not certain that some of this sand does not find its way into places not contemplated by James I, if ever he knew anything about the subject.
I hope that the House will understand that it is not a question of the right of removing sand but whether it should be removed and for this reason it is necessary to define more accurately the areas from which it can be taken. The orders do not prevent the removal of sand altogether but merely from the dangerous areas. For instance, in the case of Harlyn Bay those who opposed the order at the inquiry themselves suggested reducing the prohibited area. The order, as amended, substantially adopts their compromise. The only difference is that we adopted a description less likely to give rise to dispute than that put forward by the objectors. The total prohibited area is substantially the same as they themselves suggested. In fact, all we are really doing is giving statutory effect to the compromise which they themselves regarded as reasonable. It is obvious that there must be a balance struck between the requirements of agriculture and those of coast erosion. It is nonsense to fertilise land which by the very act of fertilisation falls into the sea.
The procedure necessary for these orders has been complied with, and no memorial has been received against them. A public local inquiry was held on 8th July, 1947, and all interested parties were heard, including representatives of the

National Farmers' Union. The Cornwall county branch of the Union has, however, expressed contrary views. So far as I am concerned, there is not the slightest doubt about the position. We are not here dealing with amenities, because I regret to say that I have no power to protect the amenities. It is true that the taking of the sand in Cornwall affects the amenities of the bays at the same time as it gives rise to coast erosion, but I am not permitted under statute to allow such considerations to weigh with me. All I can do is to consider whether the taking away of this sand from these places gives rise to the danger of coast erosion. I am satisfied that it does, and I ask the House——

Mr. Charles Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has had complaints on this matter as far as these two places are concerned. Can he give us any sort of idea of the number of persons who complained? For instance, do they run into scores?

Mr. Bevan: It does not matter if they run into one. All I ask myself is whether the complaints are real and substantial facts. Then I direct my attention to the matter.

Mr. Williams: It was not a big number.

Mr. Bevan: It could not be a large number, because there is not a large number on the coast down there. All I am concerned about myself is to have regard to the complaints. Numbers are of no importance at all in this regard. My concern is whether the Minister charged with the responsibility of protecting the coast of England against erosion acts promptly or does not act at all.

Commander Agnew: Will the Minister say whether complaints came from others than interested landowners?

Mr. Bevan: I must confess at this moment I would not know who are interested landowners. The original complaint was made to the Minister of Transport and upon those complaints action was taken. I hope hon. Members will realise that the only function that a complainant has in this regard is to direct attention. It does not follow that his interests are or are not affected. All that has to be established is that there has been conveyed to the Minister responsible informa-


tion that coast erosion is likely to take place as a consequence of the action taken by any persons whatsoever. It is the nature of the information, not the nature of the informant, that matters. For example, if I went down to Cornwall myself and in the course of my visit—which did not happen in this case because hon. Members must realise that this action was started with the Ministry of Transport before I was made responsible for coast erosion—I saw sand being taken away from some of these bays day after day, I would say quite frankly that I should be offended. I should make inquiries and find out if this procedure was going on.
It has been established technically that coast erosion is taking place. I am not interested in the source of complaints, but in the facts themselves. On proper inquiry I am satisfied that a case has been made out for the orders. May I point out to hon. Members that some of the consequences of coast erosion in this country are so serious that Ministers must be sustained in preventing their continuance.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Having listened to the Minister tonight no one in this House would for one moment under-estimate the danger of erosion to the coast of England and of Cornwall, for I would remind the Minister there is England and Cornwall. At the same time, although he put the case reasonably and I believe that at this moment he is perfectly sincere in what he has stated, I dislike that remark very much about the suggestion of vested interests. Anybody who represents Cornwall, lives in Cornwall, knows its coast and recognises its exquisite beauty would be unlikely to speak in this Chamber if he seriously considered that it required an order, this particular order, to keep this coast intact.
It is my duty tonight to put another point of view in front of the Minister. I believe that he has been ill-advised. He has already referred to the time of James I and the Charter then given to the people of Cornwall and Devon. I do not know the distances travelled at that time but it would appear odd, if the Minister is correct, that sand in these cases could not have gone out of the confines of Cornwall, why at that time Devon was

specifically mentioned. I mention that because it should be taken into account. Travelling past the times of James to round about 1758, I wish the Minister to realise that every historian has mentioned the value of this sand for agriculture from the time for Borlase, for did he not mention the great necessity to fertilise the ground of Cornwall with this sand and lime. If we come to 1817—there is a purpose in this point Mr. DeputySpeaker—we find that the great historian, Gilbert, makes reference to it as well. He refers to the fact that at that time it was mostly put on the soil during December or Miz Hedra, "the month also black," as it is sometimes called.
A very short time ago, on 11th December, I tried to get the Minister to delay this order. I asked the Lord President of the Council whether it could be delayed so that we could discuss this matter after the Recess. After all, the time to the end of the Recess is not so great as that from the time of James I. The reason I made that request is that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) is not with us. I feel sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the whole House sympathise with him in the great injuries he has sustained and the reason why he is not here tonight, but this is in his Division and I would have hoped that he would be able to speak on the point. In order to refresh my own knowledge of the exact places we are to discuss, I travelled to the two bays this weekend and went over every inch of the ground with Mr. Hocking, who is the chairman of the sand committee.
I would like to relate what I found at those two bays. Perhaps I may take Rock first and Harlyn second as we are discussing the two orders together. In the case of Rock, there is no doubt that a great deal of damage has been done, but I trust that the Minister has been informed why that damage has come about. In his speech he said that there was controversy whether or not certain factors influenced coast erosion. In the case of Rock, if we go down that wonderful sand, gleaming in gold, we notice that the old pier has come up out of the sand. That has nothing to do with the taking away of sand but is caused by the sea altering the course of the channel of the river. Where sand has been taken out lately it is very difficult to argue that the erosion is


caused by that and not by the sea. I really feel that all would agree on that point.
The case of Harlyn Bay is easier to describe and will probably be easier for the House to understand. I sincerely trust that the Minister will listen to the points I wish to make. A public inquiry was held in July of this year. The House will be aware of the enormous gales we suffered at the beginning of the winter. The sea sometimes takes strong and strange courses, and if we go along many of the coast sides of Cornwall we will see the damage that it did. This is what was found at Harlyn Bay last weekend, not in July, 1947, but now. Thousands of tons of sand are piled up between the sea and the river. If we go back to 1905, on the chart which I have beside me—I see that the Minister has heard me mention 1905 and has turned away——

Mr. Bevan: I did not intend to be rude to the hon. Member. I thought he was not grasping the point that nobody is preventing sand being taken away.

Mr. Marshall: That is not the point. Speaking of this vast quantity of sand, this chart of 1905—which is the most up-to-date I possess—shows that the river goes straight out to the sea.
At present, owing to the sand which has been built up, it goes towards the North round the Bay and around good agricultural land lying to the North, and so to the sea. During this summer of 1947, I am given to understand, the agricultural committee tried their best to divert that course. They tried by putting sandbags there to prevent erosion on that coast line to the North, and at the same time to let it flow steadily and swiftly through to the sea, and thereby to drain the marsh lying astern of the bridge. They were not successful, because of the huge tonnage of sand which lies there.
While this sand is being taken, more sand is coming there the whole time. The Minister has said that no one is talking about taking away sand. People are talking a great deal about it. Perhaps he is unaware of the race of the tides on the North coast of Cornwall, and is unaware that because of the quick tide race one would not have an hour and a half to load up sand before the tide came in. These things are of great importance, and the line now drawn makes it

practically impossible to get sand from Harlyn Bay.
Some hon. Members may not know of the valuable lime content in the sand. This is not a question of pulverised rock, but of pulverised shell. This is all shell sand. That is why there is a high content of lime, which is not found in just every bay in Cornwall. It is only found in certain bays, and has been referred to again and again through history. These bays have not altered. Tonight the Minister made reference to the fact that if we do not protect one particular part of the coast, harm might well be done to something alongside it. It might be of interest that where within ordinary memory one could prawn in the bay which lies just to the North, that is now full of sand. It is not just a question of the tide coming and going, but it is one of the things for which the mightiness of the sea is responsible. It is not a question of taking up a certain amount of sand in these places. When people have not considered this subject and talk of thousands of tons of sand as if it were of enormous size, it should be remembered that in sand terms it does not mean very much at all. It is rather like one of the stories we have in Cornwall of Tregeagle dipping Dosmary Pool dry with a leaky limpet shell.
I do not think it will be out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I will bow to your Ruling if it is—but if we consider the fertility of Bodmin Moor, and the experiment made with this sand there——

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. In my submission we are not discussing the right of farmers of Cornwall to take sand from these bays, but to take sand from a particular part of the bay. Therefore, the lime content is highly irrelevant to the consideration of these orders.

Mr. Beechman (St. Ives): On that point of Order, it is proposed to be enacted by these orders that sand shall not be taken from the seashore of Cornwall in certain localities. That is what the orders are about.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I certainly think the hon. and learned Member is getting very wide of the question. The question is simply whether the order, in the form in which it is before the House, shall be approved or not. The order appears to prohibit the removal of materials from a specific part of the shore, namely Harlyn Bay.

Mr. Marshall: I naturally bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but in passing from it I may make mention of the fact that the Minister has said that this is a question of where we shall take sand from. Surely, the House would wish to be practicable and the actual order prohibits the taking of sand from a certain site, which makes the taking of sand at all impracticable. I sincerely trust that the House of Commons will at least be practical over such a point. A public inquiry was held, and at that public inquiry, as the Minister rightly said, certain advice was tendered to the Minister. The next step was the question of a protest. The farmers of Cornwall made that protest through the N.F.U. It is true, and the Minister is right, that it was not in the form of a memorial. Maybe they made a mistake in that matter, but they thought they were protesting against the proposal, and one would have thought that over a matter which concerns food production and agriculture that protest could have been accepted in the spirit in which it was made and further consideration given to these matters.
If this order is approved it will have a great effect on agricultural production in Cornwall; let there be no mistake about that. All of us in this House are aware of the importance of food production. Even if it is argued tonight that lime can be got elsewhere, a point of great importance about the sand there is that its use saves fuel, trucks and other haulage which would otherwise be used. I do not feel that these orders will materially affect the erosion of these two bays. I believe that they will materially affect the production of food in Cornwall. I sincerely trust that the Minister may have listened to a little of what I have said, and may at least, having gone into the matter deeply, make some remarks at the end of this Debate as to his views upon it,

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Beechman (St. Ives): Neither Harlyn Bay nor Rock Bay is in the St. Ives Division, but I share with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) the desire to protect the amenities of our country and to prevent erosion. I happen to represent the lost land of Lyonesse, and I do not want to see any more land lost, especially in Cornwall.

It is because I wish to protect the land that I would like to address the House for a few minutes. The sand from Harlyn Bay and Rock Bay is used by the farming community over a wide area in Cornwall and Devon. I have the figures here of the amount of sand that goes in a month from them. The figure for Harlyn Bay is 1,500 tons a month and for Rock Bay 2,400 tons, making 56,000 tons in a year, though one should know that the sand is specially used at Christmas time and in the spring.
I ask the Minister whether he has taken the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture in this matter, and whether the Ministry of Agriculture has told him that he can go ahead and make his order? The Minister speaks of vested interests. A vested interest is merely a term of abuse for an institution which one happens to dislike or in which one does not take any particular interest.

Mr. Bevan: The question which the hon. and learned Member has asked me is irrelevant. What I have to decide is whether or not the removal of the sand causes coast erosion. The Statute places responsibility upon me to prevent coast erosion, and I am really not concerned about any other aspect of the matter than that. I can no more concern myself with the manurial contents of this sand than I can concern myself with the amenities.

Commander Agnew: If that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture was present at the local inquiry?

Mr. Bevan: Because there was obviously an interest involved. I am concerned about these orders and about whether the orders are justified on the ground of preventing coast erosion or not. That is obviously all I can be concerned about, but there is an interest in it because the sand has a lime content.

Mr. Beechman: Does the Minister mean that he has no duty to hear any representations from the community of Cornwall in regard to the use of this sand for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Bevan: Supposing it could be shown that the taking away of this sand would destroy some miles of Cornwall, would the lime content of the sand therefore prevail against the loss of Cornish land?

Mr. Beechman: The point of the right hon. Gentleman is a purely hypothetical one. The point we are making is purely practical, namely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin has said, that the taking of the land actually prevents erosion because it enables the river to flow. That is the point we are making on the subject of erosion.
The Minister by these orders seeks to prevent the farming community from using what is very beneficial to them. I am here to assert not only the wishes of the farming community though those wishes are very important at the moment. If this fertiliser is not brought from this place, it must be brought from somewhere else. There could be no more unprofitable moment at which to bring forward these Orders than the present when we are so anxious that agricultural production should increase and that transport arrangements should be made as simple as possible.

Mr. Medland: Will the hon. and learned Member inform the House whether it will still be possible for farmers, or anybody in Devon or Cornwall, to obtain sand from either Rock Bay or Harlyn Bay after the limitation has been imposed by the Minister?

Mr. Beechman: I know exactly what is the answer. Under the gentlemen's agreement of 1945, they can start taking sand at 75 feet out. Under the orders, taking the mean measurement, they have to go 175 feet out before they can begin. This order will make it more difficult than ever to get sand. The answer is that it may just be possible at certain states of the tide.
I now come to a more compelling point than any that I have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) has made very cogent points on the facts. These Orders I submit are ultra vires. In fact, they are founded on sand. The right hon. Gentleman told the House quite frankly that there was a Statute of James I. It was a Statute of the seventh year of James I, Chapter 8, which he read which confirms—it does not really grant it, because it had been granted before—the right of the people of Cornwall and Devon to get sand from their shores for the purpose of agriculture.
The question that arises is whether this Statute of James I is still substantive or

whether it has been overridden in any way by the Act of 1939 upon which these Orders are based. The answer is in the negative. I have no wish to detain the House but I must make clear the legal points on which this is based. In Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 20, page 313, of the 1930 edition, published shortly before this Act was passed, it is stated in a reference to the Statute of James I:
The Statute confirms the custom originated in a grant of Richard, King of the Romans, to the inhabitants of Cornwall.
I see an hon. Member frowning in wonder. Richard, King of the Romans, was the second son of King John and a younger brother of Henry III, and an Earl of Cornwall who was confirmed by a charter of 10th August, 1231. In 1930 Halsbury said, quite rightly, that this right is confirmed. I ask the Minister to attend to the arguments because this is a serious matter and he may well find that these orders are declared void in the courts, if he proceeds with them. I am making a point which is of some consequence. This matter is further confirmed in the latest edition of Stuart Moore on the Law of Waters.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and learned Member asks me to listen. I was, listening very carefully. It appears to me that he is now trying  convert the House of Commons into a court of law. As to whether or not these orders are ultra vires is a matter for a court of law, and not for the House of Commons.

Mr. Beechman: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He may have to face a court of law if he carries the day. The House of Commons may have to be put right by the House of Lords in this matter, and this is the moment, if he is, seeking an affirmative resolution of the House to draft orders, for me, or anyone, to say that the orders are ultra vires. Therefore, with no apology, I pray in aid what is said to be the leading authority in this matter. In the 1933 edition, at page 66, it is said without any qualification whatever that, upon this Statute of James, the taking of sand from the shore for agricultural purposes by the inhabitants of Cornwall and Devon is good law. This was in confirmation of an original grant by Richard King of the Romans to the inhabitants of Cornwall. I say, therefore,


that both Halsbury and the 1933 Edition of Stuart Moore make it plain that this ancient and well founded right, that means so much to the people of the Far West, has not been abrogated by the Coast Protection Act of 1939. Let me point out that the Act in Section 5, and in its Second Schedule, repeals other Acts. But the Statute of James is not specified as repealed. I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say—that there is some general proviso about passed Acts and customs being met. But it is a very well known rule of law that general words do not affect the matter when it is specifically plain that a law, such as I have described in the Act of James, is still extant. There is no such thing as an implied repeal in those circumstances. There is a Section which says that these Orders may be made in regard to land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to defend himself on that let me tell him that Harlyn Bay is not owned by the Duchy, and that enforces the case which I presented.
In my view the alternatives here have not been sufficiently considered. I understand there is a willingness that there should be somebody on guard to see that the line of the gentleman's agreement is not over-passed, and it is desired in Cornwall that there should be a further inquiry and further witnesses. I repeat that now is the most inexpedient time for bringing these orders forward, and in the light of what I have said I ask that they be withdrawn and a fresh inquiry be held, and, if necessary, fresh orders be drawn.

8.58 p.m.

Commander Agnew: My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) have dealt very fully with this case, and I shall not detain the House long with the few remarks I have to make. It is customary at the outset for an hon. Member to declare his interest if one exists. I say frankly that neither of these two bays is in my constituency. They are, of course, in the Parliamentary county, part of which I represent. My interest is a general interest on behalf of the whole farming community in Cornwall. I think it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had fortified himself this evening with the presence on the Front Bench,

if not of the Minister of Agriculture himself, at least of his Parliamentary Secretary, because the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is a proper interest on the part of agriculture in this matter. I think it is doing the House less than justice that there is no representative of that Ministry present tonight.
The Minister, at the outset of his speech, told us something about coast erosion, and he made a comparison, rather a graphic one, I thought, with the tidal flow sweeping away Cornish land and eroding the coast at a rapid rate. Surely, the part of the coast of which the Minister was thinking was the East and South-East coasts of England, where, of course, whole stretches of open, unprotected coast are, from year to year, being eroded, thus requiring elaborate sea works to maintain them. In Cornwall, there is an absolute contrast to that. Cornwall has a rocky coast well able to take care of itself, and erosion there scarcely exists at all.
When the Minister told us how this trouble had suddenly arisen, I could not help thinking, and it must have crossed the minds of other hon. Members too, that, in all these long years from the time of the original statute of 1609, when these rights were first granted by Act of Parliament, it is a surprising thing that not until now has this trouble come to a head, when the Minister of Health, now the Minister responsible, has felt such a great sense of urgency that he must take action. The right hon. Gentleman really gave the House no information and no arguments whatever in putting that case forward and in suggesting that the danger was so great that this matter could not be left to continue as it had done in the past.
The farming communities in Cornwall are very apprehensive of the effects which will come about if these orders are given the force of law and they are virtually restricted from drawing sand from these beaches in order to fertilise their land. Cornwall is a county naturally deficient in the lime content of its soil and rocks, and this calcarious sea sand is very valuable indeed for fertilising their land. It contains as much as 8 cwt. or 9 cwt. of carbonate of lime for every ton of sand taken away and put upon the land. I say without hesitation that, if these facilities are withdrawn altogether, the farmers will have to import from outside the county anything up to 60,000 tons of ground lime to make good that deficiency. Not only


will that place an increasing expense upon the farmers, and one that will, of course, tend to unbalance the traditional economy of the Cornish farms, which have gone on now for hundreds of year, but it will have another disadvantage at the present time. There is a very great shortage of railway wagons in the whole country, and a shortage like that is especially accentuated in a peninsula like Cornwall. At this time, nearly all the railway wagons available in Cornwall for agricultural purposes are needed to take up country the vast crops of broccoli which are grown there. If the transport system is to be further strained by these wagons, when they come back, having to unload lime as well, it will put an excessive strain on the system.
Another fear which the farmers have—if these orders come into force—is that they will be the thin edge of the wedge, and that, very soon, what the Minister describes as complaints will come from other interested persons, alleging damage on other beaches in the county. If these orders are followed by others, there will quite soon be an entire cessation of these facilities for drawing sand from the beach. I noticed that the Minister recognised the danger of cutting off the supply of sand. Although he said that he had no concern at all, apart from coast erosion, he was at pains to try to make out a case that, even admitting the lines drawn by these orders, sand could still be drawn from the permitted places on the seaward side.
I can find nobody in Cornwall entitled to give an opinion on these matters who believes it will really be feasible for the lorries or carts to get sand from a line drawn so far near the sea that it will be perilous for them to attempt to do so in the very short time permitted by the tides. At this time, as the Minister said, we have to strike a balance between particular interests and general interests. I say that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to draw a balance in favour of the particular interests. But, surely, there is an overriding interest at this time—the national interest.
The Minister of Agriculture has put out an appeal for a greatly increased agricultural production. Is this the time to discourage the farming community in one of the counties that is expected to make a great contribution towards that increase by taking away from it the facility to

obtain a fertiliser which it has enjoyed for hundreds of years? In time, when this country is prosperous once again, perhaps the Minister would be right to consider matters like this, whatever was his decision, but, at this time, I am quite convinced that he is doing the country a public disservice by introducing these orders and stopping a facility which would greatly help agriculture if it were allowed to continue.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: Perhaps I, as, I believe, the only Cornish farmer in the House, might be allowed to say something on this matter from the point of view of one who during the whole of his life has watched the taking of sand from one place to another, and who also has some experience of what has happened in this particular case. In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the fact that this order came under the Bill which this House of Commons had rightly passed in an endeavour to stop coast erosion. We all know that trouble, and that it is a very bad thing in many parts of the country. But I have some knowledge of the coasts of Cornwall, and I have yet to hear of any really bad case of erosion caused by the taking away of sand there. One may occasionally find a road or an odd small house which has been endangered by it, but, however far one goes with the removal of sand, the curious fact is that, up to the present, nature has always put that right, as it has for generations in Harlyn Bay.
There are many other places, but I will keep to Harlyn Bay and I will go on from where, I think, quite honestly the Minister has been led astray. He has to make this inquiry. He had his complaint and he has to make his inquiries; and he made them. There has obviously been no great demand or we should all have heard of the thousands of people who were demanding it. It is quite obvious, for instance, that there has not been a pressing demand on the local Member of Parliament who, by our great misfortune, cannot be here tonight, or he would have informed the Minister of the enormous number of people who were dissatisfied so far as this matter of erosion was concerned. The Minister used one phrase which amazed me, and I would like every farmer in Cornwall to hear this phrase to see what the Minister thinks is


the real position. The Minister asked what was the use of fertilising land which, by the act of fertilisation, falls into the sea.
There must have been millions of tons of sand in Cornwall taken on the land above the cliffs. Has anyone ever heard, in the whole course of history, of this land falling into the sea? It really is the Minister's best poetic Welsh imagination to suggest that could happen in Cornwall. It could happen in some places, but not in Cornwall, as a general rule, so far as this particular Harlyn Bay is concerned. Before 1914 for many years I had some connection with a considerable number of farmers in the triangle of land where most of this sand went—this triangle between St. Merryn, St. Eval and St. Issey, and the flattish hinterland behind. That was in the days of carts, when you could still take this sand up and use it locally.
So far as this particular sand is concerned, the real trouble is that, instead of its only being used locally—and I am following strictly the lines which the Minister made—we are now in the position that this sand is being used all over Cornwall. In other words, this sand is really the equivalent of a very high percentage of lime, and remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the value of sand is not only its lime content. It has a terrifically valuable content as a breaker-up of soil for garden, horticultural or farming purposes, and this particular form of sand is roughly half lime, or very nearly so. What is being done in this particular case is precisely the same as if one had a quarry on the edge of the cliff with a very valuable stone for road making. One could use it for the production of roads. We might cut off a little bit of England, but it might be that, on the whole, we did more good than harm. As the Minister said, we would have to weigh up the position.
In this particular case, I maintain that the whole bulk of the weight is not on coast erosion, which could only be very small, but really must be on the fact, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne said just now, that we are supplying a vast territory which is, by acknowledgment, short of lime. This Act of James I has been the preservation of Cornish agriculture for generations. We were

short of lime. We carried lime from a very long way and I know of many old lime kilns in Cornwall out of use, but all my life I have seen carts taking away sand from the beach, which contained lime, as well.
May I go into the actual formation of this beach at Harlyn Bay? It is worth knowing, if we are to take a slice of the beach away. Whether the Minister's officials knew it or not, heaven only knows. On the north coast of Cornwall there are certain beaches where, by the action of the tide, there is washed up an enormous proportion of shells. But there is another action also which I think has not been mentioned. Whereas in Cornwall there is no lime, up the coast in Devon there is sand which is washed round by the course of the tides over the years, and there is limestone there. It is a very curious fact that nature seems to use the sea, on almost any sand beach in the West Country, quite different from the way it does up country. It seems to be always taking sand away with the rivers, and then piling it back on the sea coasts, just as rivers are taking far more sand than can probably be carted, except in very close places.
I am not fighting the Minister on this matter. I shall fight him politically whenever he likes and I shall enjoy it, although he will probably enjoy it more. This, however, is not a political question; it has nothing to do with politics or with party. He has had wrong advice for once, and it is a very easy thing to happen. The coast erosion people under this Bill, under which the Minister operates, are doing something totally different from what we were considering. I would ask the Minister to withdraw this order temporarily. I see a Cornishman sitting next to him. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King). Whether he is going to say something on this on behalf of his Division I do not know. Perhaps, he is not allowed. I wish he were as free as he was six months ago, and I am sure we should have had a most interesting speech from him.
Let me tell him about one small thing in this order which did make me wonder what it was all about. At the end of the first paragraph it says:
Except minerals more than 50 feet below the surface.


Why in the world was that put in? It must have some meaning. We are not likely to get a mine like the Lelant Mine. We are not likely to have anything of that sort, and I think it a quite unsuitable thing to put in this order. The order will adversely affect the two cases where we have the best raw materials. It will do that at a time when there is a terrific shortage of lime in the West Country, and when there has been a tremendous effort by the Government to subsidise lime—quite rightly. It is giving away what the sea freely gives to the people of Cornwall in the way of lime. It is being done, possibly only for the sake of one small bit of road which will do minute good in proportion to the value of the sand, or possibly for one or two nice, charming seaside people going to live there.
In my constituency more people live by the sea than in the hinterland, and the last thing I want to do is to say anything against them. However, there will only be one or two villas affected; it cannot run into dozens. "Ah," says the Minister, "you get a little bit of erosion here, and it goes round, and then at somewhere else the tide takes the sand out." That is correct; but on this coast the tide is moving the sand in and out; it is always pouring in more and more from the bottom of the ocean. For the latter part of my life I have lived near a beach, and have noticed that sometimes it is down four or five feet, yet in four or five days thousands of tons will be back there.
Under these orders the Government are taking from the Cornish people and farmers something which they have always had; the Government are taking away the very best of the sand which is wanted at the present time. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will say that he will adjourn the discussion for the moment and go into the question more fully with the Minister of Agriculture. If he would do that, I feel sure that, on his own showing, the balance would be in favour of agriculture rather than the consideration of a very small amount of coast erosion.

9.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: After that most powerful appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I will intervene for only a few minutes. This is not a matter,

of course, on which I am an expert, but it strikes me that the House is in some difficulty tonight. There are five Members for the County of Cornwall; three have spoken against these orders; the fourth, who is the local Member, is unfortunately ill—and possibly would not have spoken, because he has a new affiliation and may have felt that he had to support the Minister—the fifth, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, is sitting next to the Minister, and has been looking very glum during most of the Debate, and, so far as I can judge, does not appear to be very much in favour of these orders.
The Minister has based his whole case upon the coast erosion aspect of the problem He gave me the impression that the representations—or whatever they were—made in the beginning were such that he, as Minister responsible for dealing with coast erosion, had no option at that stage than to go forward and institute the necessary statutory inquiries, which I gathered he had done, and that in the long run that was all with which he was concerned. I take it that the Members for the Cornish constituencies are not themselves at all anxious that their county should disappear under the sea, and that they are just as much in favour of proper coast protection in dealing with the problem of coast erosion as the Minister or anybody else. They have all stressed the agricultural effects which may follow from these two orders.
When the Minister was speaking he made a point which at first sounded a good one. He said that when the Act of James I had been passed the amount of sand taken from this region was naturally limited to the means of transport of that day, and, therefore, the potential damage was obviously much less than in these days of highly mechanised transport, when, not only were the larger vehicles able to take away more sand, but able to take it greater distances. At first blush, that sounds quite a good argument, until one asks oneself, "Why should they use the larger vehicles to take the sand further distances?" The answer has been supplied: Because of the great value of this sand. I understand—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture actually subsidises the obtaining of this sand, and not only the getting of it, but


its distribution to farms in Cornwall. If that is so, it seems to me that we are up against a real conflict of interest. The right hon. Gentleman's only concern is coast protection, and we understand that, but when it becomes a matter of this scale, such as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) has said, involving anything up to 60,000 tons of lime, and all that means in terms of transport and so on, it becomes a Governmental rather than a Departmental matter.

Mr. Bevan: That is why I am handling it.

Captain Crookshank: I can recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Government, but in the absence of his agricultural colleagues. It strikes me that there is a case, as this is apparently not a matter of urgency and there are a great many days when this order can lie on the Table, and in view of the fact that the House is to rise so soon, for the Minister to consider adjourning the Debate, and during the interval to have some other kind of inquiry than this purely statutory one. I can understand the kind of inquiry he has already had, but could not he have some independent experts, say two people, who could go down and really assess the position? Perhaps the Minister will consider that, and not urge the putting through of this order tonight.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Medland: I should like to ask one or two questions before the Minister replies. I have been very interested to hear my fellow West-countrymen pleading a case tonight, but I think that a great deal of it has been done with the tongue in the cheek. Anyone would think that this sand was used entirely for agricultural purposes. Will they definitely tell the House that none of this sand is sold by dealers? Will they tell the House that none of it is sold to builders' merchants?

Commander Agnew: Since we have been asked the question, may I tell the House? It is very well known that in the county of Cornwall, as elsewhere, there is practically a cessation of all private building, and that the only building being done is at the instance of the local authorities under licence. Anyone who knew any-

thing at all about building would not be so foolish as to suppose that these building authorities would use sea sand.

Mr. Medland: That is very interesting, because the biggest customer for Cornish sand is the local authority with which I have served for the last 25 years, and we are buying sand from Cornwall for the whole of the reconstruction of our works. Hon. Members opposite know that the sand is used for all sorts of other purposes besides agriculture.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I hoped that it might have been possible to get these orders through the House without any acrimony. Hon. Members opposite have been really asking for it the whole evening, but I was not proposing to take much notice of some of the arguments they advanced, because I know that certain hon. Members' speeches were intended for the consumption of their constituents. I was, however, astonished by the intervention of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). What did he suggest? This is an Act of 1939. This is an Act of a prewar Government, or a Government of hon. Members opposite, of which he was a Member. It imposed upon the responsible Minister the necessity for conducting an inquiry in accordance with certain statutory formalities. What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest? That the procedure laid down in their Act is now inadequate, and that I should set aside the Statute and adopt an entirely different sort of procedure? I have never heard of a more amazing suggestion from a person who is supposed to have had experience.
The trouble with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is that his mind is so polemically disposed that he is more concerned about the arguments than the merits of the case. Will he tell the House under what authority I can conduct an inquiry except this. In what other way can I spend public money in conducting an inquiry except under Statute. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman really talks nonsense. He had to talk nonsense, because after listening to three speeches from hon. Members behind him, he had to find an excuse for intervening. The fact is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have made no case at all.
Let us take Rock Bay for example. It is prohibited by the order to take sand from within certain prescribed limits. The protest is that if farmers are denied the right of taking sand, they will not have sand for their farms. They cannot take sand from within the prescribed limits, because there is no sand there. They have to take sand from outside the prescribed limits. What the order does is to prevent them from taking any sand that may be deposited within the limits. A great deal of what we have heard from the other side was hyperbole. There is nothing about the Rock Bay order which prohibits them from taking sand for the land. About Harlyn Bay the proposal in the order is the compromise to which the farmers themselves agreed. I said that in my opening speech. [Interruption.] Really hon. Members opposite ought to learn up their case before they make such long speeches about it.

Mr. Beechman: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is what the farmers agreed. I can only say what the Farmers' Union told me, and they said emphatically that this is not the case.

Mr. Bevan: I am concerned at the moment with a gentleman's agreement which was violated and which farmers themselves accepted. All that is embodied in the order is that which it was substantially agreed should be the limits to sand taking. We are not really concerned about that. What we are concerned about is the fact that there is obviously what is conceived to be a conflict of interest between the residents and farmers and the obligations which the Statute imposes upon the Minister. One can understand why it is that during the passage of all the years we have never had an effective coast erosion plan from hon. Members opposite. It was because they could never stand up at any time against the pressure of any vested interest whatsoever. The speeches we have had this evening have been a scandalous disgrace to this House, because what we are here concerned with is what we have had over and over again from hon. Members opposite. There have been appeals after appeals by Conservative Members for us to protect the coasts of Great Britain against erosion, but because it interferes with free lime for a few farmers they cannot stand the pressure.

Commander Agnew: Commander Agnew rose——

Mr. Bevan: No, I will not give way. The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) asked where were the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture. Why should the Minister be here as a witness? There is a Minister here setting forth the case on behalf of the Government. All these considerations have been taken into account. They have been considered at the inquiry and considered after the inquiry. The conclusion we have reached is that the protection of these bays and the protection of the coast of Cornwall must come first. I disagree entirely with the exaggerated language used by the hon. and learned Member. He described the plight of Cornish agriculture, being denied sand in this area. Surely there are other parts of Great Britain where the land has not sufficient lime content, but the lime has to be brought there. Lime still can be taken here, but if the farmers in Cornwall have to choose between destroying their coast and getting lime from outside they must get lime from outside. There is here a clear conflict of interest. The hon. and learned Member spoke about this order being ultra vires. If it is ultra vires he need not bother about it. It would have no effect.
As a matter of fact the Act of 1939 used language specifically to deal with a case of this sort. It states—I will not quote the whole of the Clause because it is too long—
… as may be stated in the notice, a memorial is presented to the Board by some person having an interest, right or privilege conferred on him by any local or private Act which would be affected by the order …
In fact, we know that in many instances it is impossible for the State to step in and protect the coast of England from erosion because some private persons with traditional interests are sitting and squatting and all the while it is falling into the sea. If they fell into the sea with it, it would not be so bad. Therefore, we have found it necessary to state our views in this regard and I am quite sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will consider the general interest before they consider the particular interest advanced this evening.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 93.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[9.40 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mort, D. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Nally, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Gilzean, A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Awbery, S. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Oldfield, W. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Goodrich, H. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Orbach, M.


Acland, Sir R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Bacon, Miss A.
Grey, C. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Baird, J.
Grierson, E.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Parkin, B. T


Bartlett, V.
Gunter, R. J.
Pearson, A.


Barton, C.
Guy, W. H.
Peart, T. F.


Battley, J. R.
Hale, Leslie
Perrins, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Benson, G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Berry, H.
Hardy E. A.
Popplewell, E.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Binns, J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Price, M. Philips


Blackburn, A. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pritt, D. N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Boardman, H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hoy, J.
Randall, H. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ranger, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Rankin, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Buchanan, G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Richards, R.


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Robens, A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Callaghan, James
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sargood, R.


Collick, P
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Scollan, T.


Collindridge, F.
Keenan, W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Collins, V. J.
Kendall, W D
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Kenyon, C
Sharp, Granville


Comyns, Dr. L.
Key, C. W
Shurmer, P.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
King, E. M.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Simmons, C. J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kinley, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Daines, P.
Lang, G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Leslie, J. R.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipson, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Longden, F.
Stamford, W.


Diamond, J.
Lyne, A. W.
Steele, T.


Dobbie, W
McAdam, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)


Dodds, N. N.
McEntee, V. La T
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MoGhee, H. G.
Stross, Dr. B.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sylvester, G. O.


Dye, S.
McLeavy, F.
Symonds, A. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Medland, H. M.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Messer, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tiffany, S.


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Fairhurst, F.
Moody, A. S.
Titterington, M. F


Farthing, W. J.
Morley, R.
Tolley, L


Fernyhough, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.







Ungoed-Thomas, L.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Willis, E.


Usborne, Henry
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H


Viant, S. P.
Wigg, George
Woodburn, A.


Walker, G. H.
Wilkes, L.
Woods, G. S.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Wyatt, W.


Warbey, W. N.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Yates, V. F.


Watson, W. M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Zilliacus, K.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)



Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoa.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Pe&lt;ob/&gt;o, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Grimston, R. V.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Raikes, H. V.


Beechman, N. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Birch, Nigel
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Snadden, W. M.


Challen, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spence, H. R.


Channon, H.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Davidson, Viscountess
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


De la Bère, R.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Drayson, G. B.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Drewe, C.
Nicholson, G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Duthie, W. S.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Erroll, F. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Odey, G. W.
Commander Agnew and




Mr. Studholme.

Resolved:
That the Draft Harlyn Bay (Cornwall) Coast Protection Order, 1947, made by the Minister of Health under Section of the Coast Protection Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Draft Rock Bay (Cornwall) Coast Protection Order, 1947, made by the Minister of Health under Section f of the Coast Protection Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th November, be approved."—[Mr. Bevan.]

BISCUITS (CHARGES) ORDER

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Biscuits (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 2556), dated 1st December, 1947, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd December, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

9.50 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There ought to be some discussion about this Order. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to tell me whether I am right in my understanding of it. I understand that the purpose of the Order is to make certain, following on a policy which was determined some three years ago, that there should be no subsidy on the flour used in biscuits and that it is the growth of the price of wheat and flour which has caused the rise in this subsidy. I notice that less than a year ago, the subsidy amounted to only 24s. on 280 lb. and that it is now 45s. Perhaps the hon. Lady will assure me that nearly doubling the amount of money, represents the fact that the price of flour has nearly doubled in that time. I have a little difficulty in equating that with other figures, particularly those in the Estimates. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me that and will also tell me whether this rise of 5s. since the beginning of the


Financial Year was something not foreseen when the Estimates were presented.

9.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): As the House is very familiar with this Order I did not intend to speak on it, but I want to reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his supposition is correct. The increase of 5s. from 40s. per cwt. to 45s. is entirely due to the increase in the price of wheat and the increased cost of manufacture.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Nigeria) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Gold Coast) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sierra Leone) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Gambia) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Nyasaland) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Aden Colony) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Palestine) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Honduras) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Antigua) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (St. Christopher and Nevis) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Montserrat) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Addresses to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Virgin Islands) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: It is a very long time since the Virgin Islands have been discussed in this House, and I would like to ask the Financial Secretary a question or two. We on this side of the House very much welcome this series of double taxation relief orders, which are in accordance with the principle on which the Board of Inland Revenue are now working. I want to ask about the Virgin Islands because when I was there some years ago I was not aware that there was any taxation there. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has been at the pains to find out whether that is still the situation. At that time there was only one official, the Commissioner, and he also occupied the posts of magistrate, coroner, registrar, provost-marshal, postmaster, registrar for births, deaths and marriages, civil marriages officer, registrar of shipping and medical officer. I believe he is retired now. At that time there was


no taxation in the Virgin Islands. I would like to inquire what the present rate of Income Tax is in the Virgin Islands, and what other taxes there are at present coming within this Order which apply in the Virgin Islands?

9.55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Virgin Islands form part of a number of islands knows as the Leeward Islands, and although it may be true that all the taxes listed in this agreement are not at present levied in the Virgin Islands themselves, nevertheless they are levied in some other part of the Leeward Islands. I am sorry that I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman what he wants to know. If I had had notice that he was going to raise this matter, I would have obtained the information for him. I will still do so if I may, and communicate to him privately what the actual rate of Income Tax is in the Virgin Islands. I am sorry to say that I have not that information by me at the moment. I regret it, but that is the case.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Could the Financial Secretary tell us what exactly is meant under this Agreement by Clause 9 of the Schedule.

Mr. Hall: That is the Presidential tax?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Yes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Clause reads as follows:
An individual who is a resident of the United Kingdom shall be exempt from Presidential tax on profits or remuneration in respect of personal (including professional) services performed within the Presidency in any year of assessment if—

(a) he is present within the Presidency for a period or periods not exceeding in the agregate 183 days during that year, and
(b) the services are performed for or on behalf of a person resident in the United Kingdom, and
(c) the profits or remuneration are subject to United Kingdom tax."
The operative part of that Clause is (c): "If the profits or remuneration are subject to United Kingdom tax." This is an Agreement to avoid double taxation. If, in this regard, and for the purposes of this particular income, a person is subject to United Kingdom tax, he does not pay

both. He gets tax relief from the Presidential tax which may otherwise be levied as a result of income which comes to him as a result of being associated with the Presidency.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: While I agree that the Financial Secretary has given a very good explanation of Clause 9 (1), it does not seem to me to cover Clause 9 (2).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can only say that these things are reciprocal, and that if a United Kingdom resident need not pay both taxes under this Agreement obviously in the same way a resident in the Virgin Islands would not pay United Kingdom taxes.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Virgin Islands) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th December.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section f of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Oadby, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Rochdale, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section f of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of West Hartlepool, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section f of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Clacton, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act,


1932, to the Borough of Henley-on-Thames, a, copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Ludlow a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved."—(Mr. Younger.)

OATMEAL (POINTS RATIONING)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I beg to move,
That the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1947 (Amendment No. 4) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 2586), dated 3rd December, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be annulled.
I wish to direct attention to page 2 of the order, paragraph (h), that part which, once again, puts oatmeal on points. So far as I understand it, oatmeal is to be on points at four points a pound. I say at once that it is fully appreciated by hon. Members on this side of the House that we have had a short crop of oats this year due to the late winter and the very great drought in the summer. Therefore, we realise that some form of control or restriction may be necessary. It is the method of control and its harsh impact on the people of our country to which we object. It is our suggestion that an amending order should be laid to revise that part of the order which deals with the rationing of oats and oat products.
I hope that we may suggest that a course of action should have been taken, and be taken now, to avoid the necessity for placing oatmeal on points. The present situation need not have arisen if the matter had been handled in the way in which it should have been handled during the past months. In arguing these points, and in proving them, I hope that I may be allowed to give a brief outline of how our oat crop is used, and how big the crop is this year.
In 1946 we had an oat crop of three million tons. In 1947 our oat crop was 2,500,000 tons. In both cases, I have included imports from Canada, thus showing the oats available to the Minister for disposal before he considered the terms of this order. Perhaps hon. Members who have not gone into this matter in detail do not appreciate the fact that all that is

used for milling, malting or flaking—that is, for human consumption or alleged human consumption—is only 12 per cent. of the total crop. In the year 1946, the amount allocated to the millers, the maltsters and those who make oat flakes, was 350,000 tons from a total crop of 3,000,000 tons. There we have a clear picture. The great proportion of our oat crop is fed to animals. I wish to make that point clear, for it has been said so often, that we must not allow oatmeal to be free of points because someone might give it to chickens. The main oat crop of the country is allocated for animal, and not for human, consumption. That is a fact that cannot be gainsaid. These figures are taken from the returns of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Oats are used for three purposes. There is the seed for next year which amounts to 12 per cent. or a little more. That cannot be reduced because we must ensure next year's harvest. Approximately 12 per cent. of the total crop is for human consumption, and the remaining 76 per cent. is fed to stock. That is a picture against which we must review the pointing of oatmeal for human consumption, particularly at this moment when we are looking for cereal fillers to bridge the gap due to the shortage of potatoes, and so on. Surely, the policy should be one to increase the cereal fillers available to the people rather than reduce them by an arbitrary order, which we consider most unfair in its action. I think the answer must be that the duty of a Minister is to increase, if he can, what is available.
Our objections to the Order are that the methods of control are too drastic and too arbitrary. They take into account neither the climatic conditions, and their variations, in the country, nor the habits and circumstances of the people. It is an accepted fact that, the further North we go, the greater is the farinaceous calorie intake, as my hon. Friend who is to second this Motion will be able to show from his wide experience in these matters during the war.
I want to deal first with our objections to the rationing system as it stands, under which oatmeal is raised to four points per pound all over Britain. Let us remember that, last July, when oatmeal was put on points, it was then on a basis of two points per pound, and we then had 32


points for our monthly allocation. Today, oatmeal has gone up to four points a pound, and we only have 28 points for our monthly allocation. The position which has arisen today for a heavy oatmeal user who does not happen to be an agricultural worker is that he must give 28 points to get half a stone of oatmeal; in other words, he has to sacrifice the whole of one month's points for 7 lb. of oatmeal, and, as I shall soon show, that is entirely inadequate.
During the last weekend I had a very short survey made of the consumption of oatmeal by ordinary families in the part of Scotland in which I live—not agricultural workers, not workers who are necessarily hard workers in the country. I took 12 families whom I knew normally used a good deal of oatmeal, and I was able to get the oatmeal accounts for the whole year, and I can assure hon. Members that the figures are correct. The picture that is shown is really quite amazing. These people were warehouse workers, lorry drivers, motor mechanics and office workers, and I took 12 families, who had a total of 43 people with ration books in their households.
The statistics revealed that 12 wage-earners, supporting 43 consumers, including themselves, had a monthly need of 25½ stones of oatmeal, which is what they had been used to buying. The combined points buying power of the 43 people is 1,204, and that is required for oatmeal alone. No fewer than 1,428 would be required to buy the oatmeal they need, which shows a deficit of 224 points. Assuming that every point is expendable on oatmeal, the immediate reduction of the buying power of the 43 persons is 56 lb. a month, equal to 1.3 lb. per person, but no household can afford to give the whole of its points to buy oatmeal, and I maintain that my case is proved that on certain sections of the community—I do not say all—this order will inflict very great hardship indeed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): It is not often that I interrupt, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he also inquired whether these families kept chickens?

Mr. Spence: I did not do so, but I should be very glad to make inquiries and inform the hon. Lady in due course.

Sir William Darling: Do not these people live in towns?

Mr. Spence: I thank my hon. Friend for his help. These people live in towns. I could give another instance where there is a blacksmith in my constituency whose family consumes a ton of oatmeal a year if they can get it. So that we are not exaggerating when we say that people do need oatmeal. The impression I got from reading the order was that it is either what might be called a panic Measure by the Minister, who has suddenly found he is running out of oatmeal, and has to do something to stop the rot, or else it is subterfuge to bolster up the points by putting a points value on a cereal which has been available, free of points, to people in England and Scotland during these last months. The order in its present form, if it is not amended, is going to inflict a great hardship on people in Scotland who will be deprived of a points food in an entirely disproportionate amount as compared with the people in England. It will be admitted that in Scotland we do eat a lot of oatmeal.
If we have to give points for oatmeal then we have to go without other points goods. I suggest that the Minister is aware of all this. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is aware of it, because when this matter was discussed more than a year ago, as a result of the representations made, B.U.s were made available for oatmeal products so that the person who wanted to eat oatmeal could do so by forgoing a certain amount of bread. There is no suggestion that the people of Scotland want to have all their bread and an extra helping of porridge, as the hon. Lady suggested last year. It is simply that a very large section of the community live on oatmeal because they find it convenient, they like it, and it suits them. I suggest they, have a right to be catered for, and could be, if the Minister would readjust this matter, and allow B.U.s to be converted into oatmeal points.
We have a crop of 2½ million tons of oats this year. We are going to need between 350,000 and 400,000 tons for seed, and about 350,000 tons for human consumption, allowing it to go on at the 1946 level. Therefore, we have, allowing for normal consumption, approximately 1,700,000 tons. The trouble is really that


a price control exists with fixed prices for milling oats. Today milling oats are 55s. per quarter, and feeding oats, for feeding back to livestock, 54s. 3d., which is only a 9d. difference. In the case of seed oats the price the farmers can get is not controlled.
A farmer can get 65s. today for good seed oats, and that is a fair price. I would suggest the market price is far too near the feeding price and by increasing the market price the Minister would take oats off the farm. At the present moment farmers are saying, "I can make 65s. if I sell them for seed; if I do not they are worth 54s. 3d. for feeding to stock." There is only 9d. difference between that and the milling price. I am certain that, if the Minister would review this matter and would consider raising the price for milling oats, he would attract off the farm the requisite amount of oats to give the oatmeal consumer a fair proportion of the available quantity of oats, whatever it may be.
Although the crop is down at a time when the spectre of hunger is looming in the background, the policy of the Minister must be to increase the available cereals to the people, and not to reduce them. We had this instance in the spring of 1946, when the decision of the Government was taken regarding the wheat extraction rate. It was then said that we must increase the wheat extraction rate in order to feed the cereal to the people, and not to the livestock. Surely, the same situation is arising today.
By increasing the price of milling oats, oats would be attracted off the farm. If the Minister would adopt that course, I believe there would be no need to have oatmeal on points. By all means control it, and see that it is not misused, but let us remember that nearly 80 per cent. of our oat stock is fed to animals, and we are only touching the fringe of it in taking a little away for human consumption. The margin we require to make the difference between oatmeal on points and oatmeal free of points is extremely small.
There is one other point to which I want to refer. I know that the Minister has issued an instruction that those who work on the land are to get their oatmeal free of points. But the position is not quite clear, and the Parliamentary Secretary would be doing a real service if she

would give an explicit reply on this point. In the circular which was sent out to the milling trade, the impression was created—and I know that confusion exists about it—that oatmeal can be supplied free of points where a contract was, or is, in existence at the time of the order. Hon. Members will know that the whole agricultural population, in Scotland at any rate, went on to a new system of emoluments on 27th October. That is when oatmeal, instead of being a perquisite to the farmworker, became something which he bought for himself. His perquisites now are his house, his potatoes, and his milk.
Oatmeal is no longer an automatic perquisite, and, therefore, on 27th October, which was a month before this order was laid, many of those who work on the land said, "All right, we do not want oatmeal; we will take the cash and buy as we go." Under this order those men who, for years, have enjoyed oatmeal as a perquisite, suddenly find themselves faced with the fact that their points will not be sufficient with which to buy their oatmeal.
Can the hon. Lady give us the assurance tonight that those who work on the land, and wish to do so, may make a new agreement with their employers. Will she say that the wording of the order which has been sent out to the millers does not refer to the past, or, rather, refers not only to the past but to the future, and that those who wish to go to their employers and say, "We would like to take our oatmeal from you," can do so? I can assure her that a very large number of those who in October decided to take the cash and to buy oatmeal for themselves, having no idea that it was going on points, now feel very uncertain of the position. I can also assure the hon. Lady that—as can be seen from the many arguments contained in the Press of the North-East during the last ten days—there is a lot of confusion about this matter, and that a little help from her tonight would be greatly appreciated.
Having put these points to the Minister tonight—and I know they will be supported by my hon. Friends—I feel that the matter permits of a very simple solution. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the method of distribution, in the meantime, so that the heavy oatmeal user can get a fair share—and she knows he cannot get a fair share


under this order—and then will reconsider the question of raising the price of milling oats to attract more oats into oatmeal, and thus do away with the need for oatmeal being on points. The solution is so simple. I hope there will be no necessity to divide the House on something which is so obvious.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Before the hon. Member sits down may I ask him a question relative to the instance of the blacksmith who, he says, buys one ton of oatmeal a year. That surely means eating 6 lb. of oatmeal a day over the whole year. Is that a fact?

Mr. Spence: I apologise if I have misled the hon. Member. I think I said in the blacksmith's household there were 10, and so it is quite 6 lb.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I beg to second the Motion.
Like my hon. Friend, I know only too well that a shortage of oatmeal exists today and that it is absolutely necessary on the part of the Ministry of Food to take steps to reduce human consumption. I oppose this order because it bears far too harshly upon the people of rural Scotland and particularly on the people in the North-East of Scotland. This present order is a much more drastic document than the one we debated in the early morning of 1st August, 1946. Placing oatmeal on points under this order, if it is persisted in, will be little short of a calamity in the rural parts of Scotland. In moving this Motion my hon. Friend made reference to the cereal needs of Scotland. I think the hon. Lady will bear me out from facts well known to the Ministry of Food that the cereal requirement of the people of these islands increases the further North one goes and the fact that so much oatmeal, flour, bread and so on is eaten in the North is not an accident; it is, as I have said in this House before, in acordance with natural law.
I would put it to the hon. Lady that she should grant us a concession—I believe a very slight one in the effect of this order—but one which would render it unnecessary for us to go into the Division Lobby tonight. I appeal to her to permit the exchange of B.Us. for bread, for flour and for oatmeal. I recommend

that the divisional food officers who have intimate knowledge of the areas over which they preside should be given power to sanction the exchange of B.Us. in certain scheduled areas for oatmeal. They could take the necessary simple precautions to prevent abuses such as those indicated by the hon. Lady when she talked about people keeping chickens, and that sort of thing. By so doing, I believe much of the difficulty would be overcome.
I believe, too, that if divisional food officers were given the authority to sanction bulk buying in remote areas, and in areas which are liable to be cut off in the winter, that again would cover another grave menace. The maximum in Scottish rural households is to get the meal girnal well filled against the approaching winter. The meal girnal cannot possibly be filled and possibly may not have any meal at all if this Order is persisted in. Unless some concessions are granted, such as I have indicated, there is going to be a drastic cut in the diet of rural Scotland.
There has been reference to hardship and I should like to quote from one letter, a specimen of many I have received from my constituency regarding this order. This is from a housewife, the mother of three children. Her husband and her two sons are quarry workers. This is what she has to say:
I have three men going out to work to the quarry every morning, and they take porridge for their breakfast. As they are unable to get home to dinner I have to give them oat cakes to help them with their midday meal. That takes more than half a stone of oatmeal every week, and the number of points I require is 112. That leaves me with 28 points to keep five of us a month, so that after buying peas for broth, I have no points left for syrup, dried fruits or any other commodity.
This hardship is going to be wreaked upon a vast number of people in Scotland, men, women and children. I would enter one particular appeal for the schoolchildren who have to cover long distances between their schools and their cottage homes, and I would appeal for them especially in winter. For generations they have been fortified for that long journey by Scotland's national dish, porridge.
The hon. Lady took us to task over a year ago about what she said was an attempt on our part to get a bread ration plus an oatmeal ration. This time we


are pleading with her on behalf of rural Scotland for a bread ration or an oatmeal ration.
There has been reference to the supply position. I earnestly trust that the hon. Lady and her colleagues at the Ministry of Food are doing their utmost to get supplies of oats from abroad. This oatmeal problem is fundamentally an animal feeding problem. Oats are not going to the mills because they are retained by the farmers who feed them to their livestock. I should like to know what prospect there is of getting from abroad—from Australia, for instance—millable and non-millable oats. If we could get any non-millable oats in quantity they could be exchanged with the farmers, who would accept them quite readily for oats of millable quality which could be sent to the mills. I need not reiterate what has been said about raising the price of milling oats, but I feel very strongly that, if the milling price could be made in any way comparable with the seed price, we would have more oats going to the mills than we have at present.
I have a deep and lasting interest in the Ministry of Food, and I deplore the Ministry's making an order which is not in keeping with the Ministry's tradition. Here is an order which works an undoubted hardship, an acute and most unnecessary hardship, upon a large section of the community—and, be it noted, on a food producing section of the community. This is an order which, if persisted in, is bound to fail. There is no question about that at all. It is bound to fail, and redress of some kind will have to be made. I agree that the oatmeal position is a very serious one, and I agree that the Ministry of Food must cut its coat according to its cloth, but there is no reason in the world why the finished garment should not in some way fit. This order does not fit. I appeal to the hon. Lady to give us such assurances that will make it unnecessary for us to go into the Division Lobby tonight.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I sincerely hope that the House will very decisively resist this Prayer. The mover and seconder of the Motion have very clearly stated the case against it. They admit that there is a shortage. In fact, the mover gave certain figures,

telling us that in 1946 the United Kingdom output was 2,903,000 tons and this year, 2,460,000 tons, a shortage of about 500,000 tons. In Scotland the total crop last year was 796,000 tons and this year 695,000 tons, a shortage of 101,000 tons. Seven-eighths of the English crop goes for feeding purposes. This year, because it was a very hot summer, the bulk of the English crop was burned up. That is the reason for the shortage in England. In Scotland, although our crop was below normal, in the main it has gone to the English farmers for seed purposes, at prices up to 80s. per quarter. The Ministry's price is quoted at 54s.—56s. to be exact——

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Fifty-five shillings.

Mr. Pryde: The figure from the Ministry's lists is 56s. maximum price. They inform me that when the Scottish farmer sells his crop for seed purposes to the English farmer he gets permits for feedingstuffs. That is why he is practically going into the black market—in order to realise high prices.
The Ministry of Food, instead of having strictures levelled at it, should be congratulated for protecting what remains of the crop for the purposes of the working class. We are going to have great difficulty in Scotland providing oatcake bakers with sufficient stock to keep them going, and names like Scott, Smith, Paterson, and J. M. Henderson are names to be conjured with in Scotland. There is a definite shortage, and the only complaint against the Ministry is that they did not realise it quickly enough. It is true that there are possibilities in Australia, the only country whose crop approximates in quality to the British. The Canadian crop is not——

Mr. Boothby: What about Russia?

Mr. Pryde: I am not going to discuss Russia. I will leave that to the President of the Board of Trade. Instead of levelling strictures against the Ministry, we are entitled to congratulate them for protecting the remainder of the stock.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I am not in a position to follow my hon. Friends in dealing with the domestic consumption


of oatmeal, but I am interested in some other particulars of this order. I am in the unique position of being a judge in the matter and not an advocate, because I happen to help to control two of the largest pulse mills in this country, and there are only seven of them. I would like to remind the House that pulse mills manufacture split peas, split lentils and process barley—pot barley and pearl barley—all of which are comprised in this order. Therefore, I am in the happy position of being able to say to the hon. Lady that she will have to take what I say as a fact, which is a rare and refreshing situation for a back bencher.
I agree with the order as applied to imported dried blue or green peas, and also imported lentils and split lentils, although I feel that the split lentils are somewhat needlessly included, since the Ministry of Food cannot supply us, the millers, with the whole lentils to split. Presumably they cannot supply the consumers' market with split lentils either. If they can, where do the imported split lentils come from, and who splits them? If they are coming over split, that is to say, milled, we are simply wasting our reserves of foreign currency, since we have all the machinery and plant in this country to do the splitting. That machinery at the moment is standing idle.
I do object, however, to split green peas, that is to say split peas produced from home-grown peas, being subjected to an advance of four points a pound. They are in a very different category from peas imported for splitting. They are plentiful. [Interruption.] Is some hon. Member opposite showing signs of becoming a congenital idiot? I am trying to talk about these things from the technical point of view. If he cannot appreciate that, I cannot help it. These home produced peas for splitting are plentiful, but they make an inferior processed article, because we may only use the throw-outs, that is, the second or third grades. I do not see that there is any need to up-point those. Therefore, I would like an explanation on that point.
I want to come to the question of barley. As everyone knows, there are masses of barley in this country. The distillers have just received a large additional allocation, I believe.

Mr. Boothby: Not at all a large allocation. It was merely enough to enable them to carry on for a couple of months.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my argument before he interrupts me. I dare say the brewers had the same as the distillers. The barley plants—I am speaking of machinery and not botanically—are working the 24 hours round the clock, as they have for months past—that is the plants for milling barley. They cannot turn out more than they are doing.
I want to know why these products should be up-pointed, or pointed at all. It cannot be to reduce output. That is obvious. It can only be to reduce consumption. If so, why? There must some matter, here, of deep Governmental policy, and I think we are entitled to an answer. Is it to equalise whatever shortage there may be of processed barley as far as possible, because, as the hon. Lady knows perfectly well, rice has gone from the daily menu of the people and barley has, to a large extent, taken its place. In a hundred ways, pearl barley, or pot barley as it is called, is a great help to the housewife as a substitute for rice, and we are entitled to know exactly why pearl barley and barley products have been up-pointed when, at the same time, manufacturers of barley for other perfectly laudable purposes are getting large increases in their allocations of a raw material.

10.40 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I would not like the impression to go out of this House tonight that this order, which imposes four points for a pound of oatmeal, concerns only certain of the districts in Scotland; that it concerns only the North-East and the North. Actually, it concerns Great Britain and all the towns. It acutely concerns the mothers and housewives who are being driven desperately against the wall, and this latest order is just almost the last straw. I say so because, to a great many hon. Members of this House, porridge does not matter. They can have plenty of other varieties for breakfast, but for the mother—and particularly the mother of a growing family between, say, eleven and sixteen—she has to find twice the amount of filling for the children that she does for


their father. I know that from experience. When the order was made which imposed two points a pound it was not so bad. I did not oppose it and I am not opposing this order tonight; but I am certainly not voting in favour of it.
Previously, we could fall back on some of the other "filling" foods, and it is the "filling" foods which are needed for the hungry youngsters. Bread is rationed, potatoes are rationed, and they make filling foods. What does the mother do? She looks at the next thing, which is oatmeal. Just for a modest pound of oatmeal for a week there is needed 16 points out of the 28. It is hitting desperately hard the bringing up of a young family. We cannot fry a bit of bacon for breakfast; that is quite out of the question. We cannot give stewed fruit or prunes because they are on points. We cannot give fried potatoes, because we have not the fat and potatoes are rationed. If we fall back on porridge it is 16 points per month for a family.
Then we come to the old people. Everyone knows the great difficulty that a person living alone, or an old couple together, have in getting any variety into their diet at only 28 points a book. They will have to spend 16 points for the oatmeal. I have no criticism of my hon. Friend or of the Ministry if we can be told that this order is absolutely necessary and that there is no alternative; but I do not want them to get away with the idea that everybody is placed like hon. Members of this House and that this means just nothing at all. It means something very deep and poignant so far as households are concerned.
Is the timing of this order really necessary? I ask that because a great many of us avoid porridge in the summer months. In Scotland, where we have a hard and cold climate, many families who avoid it all the summer bring it on to the menu, particularly after Christmas. Mothers like the children to go out with a good lining to their stomachs. There is nothing like good porridge for that. Out comes this order at the very time when we most need porridge. It would not have mattered—I almost said a tinker's cuss—had it been postponed until April. I have noticed dried eggs galore in the shops at the same time as shell

eggs were being sold, and when shell eggs are going off the grocer's counter, so also were the dried eggs.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: That is planning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must point out that we are not discussing dried eggs or shell eggs.

Mrs. Mann: I have noticed that when fresh fruit was plentiful tinned fruit was also plentiful on the shelves. This illustrates the lack of planning and of timing of these things by the Ministry. I must join with my colleagues who, on Friday, pleaded for variety at a time when we need the dreariness of our lives lightened a little in the dreary months. I very much deplore the imposition of four points per pound for a pound of porridge oats.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I am sure the House will agree almost to a man with the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), and we hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with her. I do not think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge could have emphasised better the traditional nature of the porridge dish in Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary should realise that we are not up against a problem of "convertibility." In this case she cannot manipulate points in the usual way of taking the demand away from one product and putting it on to another. That will not do in Scotland. The people are accustomed to their oatmeal and they must have it.
I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) talking about protecting the oatcake makers. He did not talk about protecting the food of the people. This question of the food of the people, as the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) said is paramount. The greatest possible stress should be laid upon this question of oatmeal in Scotland. It cannot be compared, for example, with the question of rice in India. We know what great difficulty was involved in persuading the Indians, accustomed to eating rice, to take wheat instead when rice was short. There is no comparison. We cannot get a hot meal dish in the morning from any substitute for oats in Scotland. In India no rice was available. No one can deny


—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to do so—that the oats are not there; of course, they are there. It is quite true that if the oats are to be there for human consumption they have to be taken from some other source, and, as has been said, the problem is to attract the oats into the right source so that they will be available for human consumption.
This is not a problem of concern to Scotland only. It has already been said that the short fall in England of the production of oats in the current year was 400,000 to 500,000 tons. The policy of the Ministry in recent years has been to push up the milling of oats in England. It has been increased to the order of something like 50 per cent. over the last few years in England to about 450,000 tons—the amount of the shortfall. In England now oat mills are closing down, and that means that it is quite idle to put in this present order a number of points for packet oats so far as England is concerned. The oats are just not there any more. You will not be able to buy them because none are being produced. I am told that a certain number—something like three thousand tons of packaged oats—are being imported from Canada, but this is absolutely nothing in comparison with what is required.
The question of oat cakes has been referred to. They are now being put on points to the tune of four points per lb. They were not pointed before this order. Biscuits, however, are pointed at one point per lb. That is the measure of the difference. We are told this is done to protect oat-cake manufacturers. Of course the effect will be that oat-cakes will disappear. It is not a form of protection for the oat-cake manufacturers. Really, I hope the hon. Lady will realise that a cup of oats per person per day is a traditional need in Scotland which, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge has said, means something like two pounds per month, and may be more. It is an absolute necessity in Scotland and in many parts of England as well.
It is the Parliamentary Secretary's task to organise the supply of oats so that they shall be available. She cannot come here and say that she has not had representations over a very long period of time from the oat millers on the subject. I have information from millers in my hand to say that representations were made

and a warning given of the situation that might develop from the Oat Millers Associations of England and Wales, the North of Ireland Oat Millers Association, and also the Scottish Oatmeal Millers Association. It is purely out of the lack of foresight that the situation has arisen. It was a question of making certain that the food of the people was available. We want to hear from the hon. Lady what she is doing about this now, whether or not she says that she will agree to the withdrawal of this order forthwith.
She might say that food production has been so badly handled that she cannot agree to it at this time, but if this is so, we want to hear what measures she is taking so that the duration of this order may be the shortest possible; how she is going to be able to make oats available from imported sources; what steps she has taken to get the farmers to bring forward their oats and replace it by other feedingstuffs. And when she has told us that and let us know how soon we are going to have porridge on our tables again, we shall have to consider whether or not to vote against this order.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I am not going to enter into the merits or demerits of this action of the Minister. I want to put before her one point which so far has not been mentioned tonight. That is the method whereby this announcement was made to the public. The natural irritation which is produced by the announcement in itself is bad enough, but the way in which the knowledge came to those who are most acutely affected by it certainly did not allay the irritation which was caused. I want to ask if it is not possible, when these adjustments have to be made, for an accompanying statement as to the reasons why to be given to the public. [HON. MEMBERS: There is no reason."] There must be a reason of some sort. I am perfectly convinced that the Minister did not take this action without good and sufficient reason. The point is that that was not made clear.
I am not disputing that a Press conference may have been held and perhaps at that conference the reasons were made sufficiently clear. But the great majority of the people in the country are dependent upon the news bulletins from the B.B.C. for the information they get with regard


to these actions, and all that happened was a statement over the wireless that oats were now on points as from a particular day. That was a great shock to many people and immediately speculation started on the reasons for this action. It was an irritating happening and to find that no sufficient and clear reason came with the happening intensified that annoyance. I hope that the hon. Lady will indicate that in future where these adjustments require to be effected, every possible effort will be made by her Ministry to see that the reason is made clear to the public. We have the confidence of the public and we want to see that we respect that confidence by letting them know the reason for such orders as this.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: There is not really very much that I want to add—[Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to jeer, but this is quite an important subject in the North of Scotland, and not only in the North of Scotland. There is not a very great deal to add to what was said so well by the hon. Members for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) and Banff (Mr. Duthie) and, might I add, the hon. Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann) who brought the benefit of practical experience into her speech. I thought that in the last ten minutes the Debate was inclined to get a little academic. The hon. Lady said it was very difficult to fill the children's stomachs in winter in Scotland when they went to school. She added that you cannot give them fried bacon. That is true. I would add that it is occasionally possible to give them fried herring, but even that requires oatmeal. I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is here. He is just embarking upon what we all hope will be a successful Ministerial career. It will be a sad day for him if he is going to inaugurate his period of office with such a savage blow as this at the happiness and welfare of the Scottish people from John o'Groats down to the Tweed. Let him not be under any illusion. If he thinks that this up-pointing is going to be popular in any part of Scotland, he is mistaken.
I do not understand the attitude of the Government with regard to oatmeal. It has always been bad. It is now almost intolerable. Last week they came down to the House with a Bill which put the oats grower in an inferior position to every other crop grower. Now this week they up-point it to a degree that none of us thought conceivable. Now without a word of warning, as the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) has said, without a word of explanation, and at the very worst moment of the year, they come down and put on this level of points. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) made a very good point when he explained the extent to which people in the country districts of Scotland, and to only a slightly less degree in the towns, consume oatmeal. His blacksmith was no hypothetical figure. He was a reality, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland goes to any part of the Western Isles and enters any crofter's cottage, he will find a number of sacks of oatmeal that will astonish him. If he asks the housewife why she has such a lot of oatmeal, she will say: "It is surprising how quickly it will go with the bairns about."
This is a savage blow to the nutritional welfare of the Scottish people. I do not put it lower than that. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen when he drew attention to the disparity between the amount of oats consumed by human beings and the amount consumed by animals. It is a great pity that a great many more oats are not consumed by human beings, particularly with the filthy bread they are getting. Oats are very much more edible and nutritional. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot ride away with chickens as she may well try to do. As far as Scotland is concerned this chicken excuse is just a red herring drawn across the path. That is a slightly mixed metaphor; but I repeat that as far as Scotland is concerned the chicken is nothing but a red herring, and the hon. Lady had better know it, before she drags it across our path tonight.
I would re-echo the plea that the hon. Lady should make clear the position of the Scottish farm worker with regard to oatmeal, and above all, those who have no longer made it a perquisite, and voluntarily agreed to buy it on points and


take increased wages in exchange. She must also make it clear whether farm workers will now be allowed to go back, as I think they should if they wish, and make oatmeal once more a perquisite. I also want to echo the plea that the milling price itself should be raised. That will go a long way to remove the disparity between the amount consumed by human beings and the amount disposed of elsewhere.
I want to say a word about the foreign negotiations that have been going on.[AN HON. MEMBER: "That is not in Order."] It is completely in Order and absolutely vital, because if we are to get feedingstuffs in any quantity either from Russia or Australia, any vestige of justification for up-pointing oatmeal goes at once. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication as to how these negotiations have gone. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in 1940 our main objective was to get food from other countries. It seems to me that the main objective of the Ministry of Food today is to stop it. Every day we find some new breakdown, whether with Canada or Denmark, in negotiations for purchasing food. The Government's main objective seems not to buy food for this country. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] It is perfectly true. Every day we open our papers we read of some pettifogging point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question arises under this order.

Mr. Boothby: If this ridiculous order is to be persisted in, it must be owing to the fact that we are unable to obtain any feedingstuffs from foreign countries. I am merely putting it to the Parliamentary Secretary that if, at long last, we are going to bring off some deal with some foreign country for the import of feedingstuffs, she should give an undertaking that this up-pointing of oats will be withdrawn. This is a very serious thing for Scotland. I submit—and I do not think the hon. Lady will disagree—that whether it would be possible to withdraw the order in the near future, or whether it is to continue for some considerable time, depends largely on the amount of feedingstuffs we are able to import from Russia and Australia, and the House is entitled to ask what the position is.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): In the event of this grain coming to this country, will the hon. Gentleman call off his demand for grain for the manufacture of whisky?

Mr. Boothby: No; I will never call off my demand for grain for whisky. It is one of the best dollar earners in the country, and the hon. Member knows it perfectly well. I was led away, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; you must admit that; otherwise I was keeping strictly to the point. This is not the first battle I have fought on behalf of oats, and I do not suppose it will be the last. In the end I have always won, and I would say to the Secretary of State, if he wants to make a success of his job, "Stick to oats, fight for oats, and you will never go far wrong."

11.7 p.m.

Lord William Scott: There was an earlier order about 18 months ago, which we tried to annul. It is worth while to notice both the differences and the similarities of the two occasions. The main difference, as I see it, is that on this occasion the front bench is graced with nearly all the Scottish Ministers. I am sure Scotland will be grateful for that. This is a great question for Scotland, and I am glad they are here. On the last occasion, as on this, the Motion was supported by six Scottish Members. We all look on this as a Scottish question.
On the last occasion the Parliamentary Secretary said we were being greedy and trying to get double rations for Scotland. We were not doing so then, and we are not doing it now. We are suggesting specifically that if the consumption of oatmeal is to be controlled in Scotland, it should be on bread units, and not on points. We believe that in Scotland oatmeal is consumed in place of wheat, and not as well as what—by wheat I mean bread. Scottish people should be allowed their choice whether they will take oatmeal or wheaten flour, and both should be on bread units. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that for centuries, Scotsmen hardly touched any wheat or wheaten flour at all. It is only in comparatively recent years that wheat has either been grown or imported in Scotland. We have no wish for the ancient


custom of porridge or oatmeal to be crushed any more severely than it is now. We were told that we were trying to score off the British larder. Those words of the Parliamentary Secretary were most ungenerous. I hope it will not be said against us now, that we are trying to score off our English neighbours. If there has to be shortage, and if there has to be hunger, we in Scotland can take our fair share of it. We are not trying to secure anything by any back door method—nor were we trying to do so last time.
In that last Debate I mentioned to the Parliamentary Secretary that if we were to give notice to Scotland of the importance of these orders, it should at least be done by a better method. I should like to reinforce the words of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) about the way in which these orders have been brought before the people of Scotland. On the last—and first—occasion, oatmeal was sandwiched between sago, tapioca and marmalade. We in Scotland look upon oatmeal as something rather superior to either sago or tapioca. On this occasion oatmeal is sandwiched between prunes—I repeat, prunes—and home-made grapefruit marmalade. If we are to play about with the staple food of Scotland, we believe it should be done, at least, by a separate order—it is worthy of that—and not classified in the same sentence as dehydrated potato flour. [Laughter.] I see nothing to laugh about in this. It is an insult to one of the finest foods produced in the Northern Hemisphere.
The reason why this order is made is fairly clear. Those of us who do our own shopping know the extreme difficulty—I know it—of getting the quantities of oatmeal we should like. I have no chickens. I have five small children, and we consume a phenomenal amount of oatmeal. At the present moment it is very hard to get it because the grocers are short of it, and the reason why the grocers are short of it is that millers are short of it. I have very little doubt myself that this putting of oatmeal on points is something in the nature of a panic measure to prevent a greater shortage in the grocers' shops. I believe that oatmeal—and herring, too—is consumed more in the houses of the well-to-do than in the houses of the poor. That is my im-

pression—certainly in Scotland: I do not know about the habits in England. At the present time, with the extreme difficulty of getting milk, there is not the same encouragement to take oatmeal for porridge as there was, and I agree with hon. Members opposite that there is nothing in this world less appetising than porridge without milk.
We want the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to put oatmeal on bread units. Over and above that, we want to see that planning is arranged so that there is a flow of oatmeal from the millers to the grocers' shops, so that every possible encouragement is given to those who make packets of oat-cakes for our own and the English market, and to those who use oatmeal for the various processed oats for porridge. They are all worthy of it, and it is a far better investment than feeding it to the animals, necessary though that is. Even so, from the national point of view, the small amount which goes into oat-cakes and porridge oats is a finer investment than feeding it to animals. I hope the Minister will tell us that the next time the Ministry have to issue an order of this variety concerning oatmeal it will not be sandwiched between sago and tapioca or any of these other nasty things, although I do not mind split peas and beans and split lentils, but I do believe it is worthy of a separate order to itself.

11.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I think the House will agree with me that there has been a great deal of repetition tonight. After hearing the last speech I think we all feel that we have lived through this moment before, in debating oatmeal. I think I am right in saying that, with the exception of the speech made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), every Member has devoted himself to the question of points rationing of oatmeal. Therefore, I would suggest that before I deal with oatmeal, I should answer the questions which have been raised by the hon. Member for Ashford. I can assure him that I do respect his knowledge of this subject, and I would not like to debate with him the comparative merits of split and unsplit peas, but surely the answer to the question is this. The reason why we have up-pointed peas and lentils is in order to conserve


supplies for the cold winter months when green vegetables are short. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is a sensible thing to do at this time. He also asked why barley products were up-pointed. The reason is that they can be an alternative to oats products and, as I am going to explain shortly, we have found it necessary to points-ration oats products and it would be a shortsighted policy to exclude barley which can be used as an alternative.
I would once more try to explain to the House why it has been necessary to take this step. Several hon. Members opposite who have spoken tonight have, I know, special knowledge of the food industry. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) during the war gave excellent service to the department which I have the honour to represent. I must confess that I was surprised that they have prayed against the order without giving the matter further consideration. Many of them have really put the Ministry's case for me. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. H. Macpherson) said that the problem with which the Ministry is faced is how to attract oats from the right source. That is what we are trying to do. The reason we are putting oats on points is in order to prevent the illicit feeding to animals and to attract these oats into the stomachs of the people where the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) wants them to go.

Mr. Snadden: How does the hon. Lady expect to get oats when the farmer gets no feedingstuffs? The farmer devotes only a part of his crop to oatmeal. He would rather put it down the throats of the animals and use it for seed.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have patience. The whole question is one of supply. It is impossible to be a consumer of oats, oatmeal and oat products unless a supply is produced.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Spence rose——

Dr. Summerskill: As I proceed I shall probably meet the hon. Gentleman's point. Last February this matter was raised on the Adjournment, and many of the arguments advanced tonight were advanced then. In February I was told that the complaint was that there were plenty of oats, but that those oats were

not reaching the consumers. The House will remember that it was necessary to points-ration oats in July, 1946, and the Adjournment Debate arose out of that action. The situation was different in 1946. There was a shortage of oats, and the decision to ration them was a corollary to the rationing of bread. Now the position is quite different, and different circumstances obtain. I remember clearly that hon. Members opposite urged me, in February this year, to reconsider the position in view of the strong representations of the Advisory Committee of the Oatmeal Millers in Scotland. I was astonished tonight when the hon. Member for Dumfries asked me, in this Debate, whether we had listened carefully to the representations made by this very important advisory committee. Every hon. Member on the benches opposite who knows something of the milling trade and of the oatmeal industry, I am sure, regards with great respect the advice proffered by this experienced committee. Last February, the committee made strong representations, and hon. Members opposite echoed them, asking us to take oatmeal off points.
The action we have now taken in putting oats products on points is in full accordance with the views of the Joint Advisory Committee of the Oatmeal Millers. The oatmeal committee is unanimous on this. There is no division of opinion at all. This is in the interests, they say, of the consumers in Scotland. Yet hon. Members, one after the other, come here tonight and, in the face of the important advice which has been proffered to my Ministry by that advisory committee, which they respect, and which has been quoted to me, ask us to reverse that decision and advice.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it not the case that this committee gave that advice because, at the moment, there is short supply at the mills? They are not getting the oats there.

Dr. Summerskill: I think it would be unfair to say that this advisory committee, which I think is composed of respected and honourable men who are as interested in feeding the people of Scotland as hon. Members opposite, are concerned in this matter with their own selfish interests. I cannot believe that. I believe that in this matter they considered


only the feeding of the people of Scotland, and that in their opinion the only way to ensure that the habitual consumer of oatmeal—the people we have heard mentioned by so many hon. Members tonight—has a fair share, is to put oatmeal on points. Therefore, we have taken the advice of Scotland in this matter; and in saying "Scotland" I mean the men whose advice the millers sought on this matter; and now Scotland comes to us in this House and tells us to turn down this advice.

Lord William Scott: The hon. Lady will recollect that we have asked that oatmeal should be put on bread units.

Dr. Summerskill: The reason we cannot at the moment allow people to switch from bread units to oatmeal points is that the shortage is so great that we cannot permit that concession.

Mr. Snadden: That is the Government's fault.

Dr. Summerskill: In order to emphasise this point I think I fully realise that the only thing which will convince hon. Members opposite is to give the figures. It is the only way to convince them that this shortage is grave. Hon. Members opposite have quoted figures—many figures—tonight and I am sorry to inflict figures on the House because they are a little boring, but I think that they should go on record. It would be useful if I gave them so that hon. Members can refer to them. I want to say what the present supply position is as the Ministry sees it and as the millers' representatives see it in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know all that."] Well, hon. Members did not appear to know it, because, if they had made inquiries and discovered the facts for themselves, this Prayer would not have been on the Order Paper. The acreage for 1947 was 3,309,000, this is 257,000 acres less than in 1946——

Lord William Scott: Shame!

Dr. Summerskill: —and the yield per acre for 1947 was the lowest for many years. Owing to the livestock expansion we expected farmers to retain an increased percentage for animal feedingstuffs, and in 1946 to 1947, 367,000 tons of oats were used for oatmeal milling. It was

estimated that in the home crop from 1947 to 1948 the maximum tonnage of oats for millers would be only 100,000 tons. During 1946–1947, as many members know, 110,000 tons from the Ministry's stocks of home-grown and Canadian oats were released to the oatmeal milling industry. We provisionally estimated that if we could get Canadian or other imported milling oats, the millers would require 140,000 tons in the 1947 to 1948 season, but now, owing to the light harvest, we find they need 300,000 tons.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) chided us for not being able to get stocks from abroad. I do not like to throw the ball back to his court, but when he was in my position he got all these things from the United States—[An HON. MEMBER: "Except the whisky"]—yes, except the whisky. It does make a little difference when the United States is prepared to send its produce on lend-lease without our business men having to go to negotiate for the food which we must have.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities) rose——

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman should not keep interrupting. He is a responsible member.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady is misleading the House; she is giving it fallacious information.

Dr. Summerskill: I have had a challenge from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman before. I have a reputation for honesty.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is slightly tarnished now.

Dr. Summerskill: If that remark is union standard I am very shocked. It is hardly worth replying to that. We have been trying to get more oats from the Canadian crop, but that was not a success because the Canadian oat crop was a comparative failure and Canada has been forced to prohibit the exportation of oats. It must be remembered, having listened to the Minister for Economic Affairs that there is a dollar stringency which prohibits us from buying oats, but I can assure the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that we are trying to get oats from abroad—from Australia, the Argentine and Russia. We have great hopes of getting some from Australia.
The shortage is so great that the mills are running on short time. As the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) said, they are short of stocks. In the face of the shortage hon. Members opposite must realise that if we are to ensure equitable distribution we must in some way divert the oats, which are being used for animal consumption, to human consumption. I would remind hon. Members that when we put oats on points the offtake of oats dropped immediately, but it was very curious that at the Ministry we had very few letters of complaint from consumers. I think it is fair to assume that if the consumers were being satisfied while the oats were pointed, it was the animals who were getting less.

Mr. Spence: By what amount did the consumption of oatmeal increase after the Ministry took it off points?

Dr. Summerskill: I could not tell the House that at the moment.

Mr. Spence: The answer is 21 per cent.

Dr. Summerskill: I will let' the hon. Member have the details.
Those are the facts. I was very surprised that we had so few complaints from consumers and we knew that the food had been diverted from animals to humans. Now again, in the face of this grave crisis, we tell the House that in our opinion the right way to tackle this is to put oats on points. I want hon. Members opposite to recall the events of the past year. We have looked very carefully at these matters, and we examined very thoroughly the whole position when oats were put on points. We considered what was happening in different parts of the country and we have saved by this method. The same thing will happen again this time. We will see what happens during the next few months, and if the position improves we will reconsider it. In view of the grave shortage of oats in this country, and in view particularly of the advice we have had from the experts in Scotland, I ask the House to approve this order.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If the hon. Lady had come down to the House and said, "I recognise that we are imposing privation on the people but this cannot be helped for the following

reasons," we might have had some sympathy with her method of presenting the case. However, she comes down and tries to pretend that the only creatures who are going to suffer are the animals. She must know perfectly well that this is a misleading observation. The very idea of this being treated in the lighthearted way in which the hon. Lady has treated it this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I adhere to the words I have used. The fact that this will mean real hunger to a number of people is a sad commentary on the way in which our affairs are now conducted. [Interruption]. I say so, and I stick to it.
The fundamental point which the hon. Lady sought to establish was that only 100,000 tons of oats can be milled this year, if I got her figures aright—an incredible statement. Out of 2,400,000 tons of oats grown in this country the whole resources of the Government are not able to deflect more than 4 per cent. into the mills. Does the hon. Lady really mean to put that forward seriously? It was clear many months ago that there would be this shortage. What attempt has been made to get more oats into the mills? None at all, that I know of. The point has been made that the price is still within a small fraction the same as the price for feeding oats. Surely, the first thing to do, if a shortage of this sort was contemplated, was to put up the price of milling oats in order to give an inducement to divert these oats to human consumption. But, of course, the Minister here, as elsewhere, prefers cheap food to plentiful food. If you put up the price of oats to the miller, you have to put up the price of oatmeal, and then this facade of cheap food for the people begins to crumble.
If I have to make a general criticism of the Minister's policy at the moment, it is that he prefers the pretence of cheap food, with a wholly inadequate quantity, to allowing the price to rise and letting people have enough to eat. Here is just another example of the same thing. Had the Minister, at the appropriate time, given the proper inducements for oats to be diverted from animal to human consumption we should not have been in this mess now, and I hope that the Minister will immediately change his policy in this matter. It is still not too late for him to divert this from animal to human consumption. I noticed that the only hon.


Member who is supporting the Government, the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Mr. Pryde), appears to think that to try to divert oats from animals to human consumption was not quite a good thing. I doubt if anyone else in the House, apart from Members who sit on the Front Bench, would agree to that.

Mr. Pryde: How is it possible to give plenty by raising the price of oats?

Mr. Reid: Surely, it is as obvious as anything could be. At the present moment we know that the millers cannot get oats to mill because the price does not tempt the farmer to sell it to them. If the Government will readjust the price structure, I have no doubt whatever they could get enough oats into the mills and, if the farms keep the millers—I do not say at full stretch—at least reasonably busy, enough oatmeal to prevent the necessity for this drastic step. I believe they can go further than that and keep the millers going at full speed even this year, and also keep last year's output of milled oats on the market this year if they go the right way about it.

Mr. Alpass: What increase in the price would attract oats to the mills?

Mr. Reid: That is a matter of trial and error. Certainly oats should have a couple of shillings added. That is all right. If it is not, I am prepared to go to five shillings. I do not see any reason why one should not. It may very well mean that before long we shall have to go a good deal further. I agree that we must not go above the current market price for seed oats because this must be the first priority, but as long as we keep our milling prices appreciably below our seed prices I cannot see any harm in that. Will the hon. Lady realise that it is not just a question of playing about with a small element of the people's food and putting it on two points, or four points, or having no points at all?
This is a matter which means the gravest hardship and, indeed it may be, the impairment of health to a large number of people in this country, and particularly in Scotland, and I think it ought to be treated from that point of view. It is true that on the last occasion that this matter was raised it was rightly suggested

that oatmeal did not need to be controlled at all. But we were not then faced with the gloomy prospects that face us today of the desperately serious shortages that are now mounting. No one at that time believed that the Government would make such a mess of their financial policy as to make it impossible to buy food that is available and no one believed that we would be faced with the terrible position with which we are faced today.
As we are faced with that position, my hon. Friends have not advocated, as they previously advocated, the release from controls. But we do say that if there is to be control of oats it ought to be by means of bread units and not points. Oats and wheat are very largely interchangeable and if a person is going to eat more oats he would naturally, and should, eat less wheat, but he should not be required to eat less pointed goods. Why not let us have bread units? What is the objection? There can be no administrative objection. I cannot see any. If the Government can supply 100,000 tons of wheat for a week on the allocation method for bread units, cannot they supply 400,000 tons of oatmeal in the same way? There is no difficulty administratively. If a method will do for 100,000 tons it will equally do for 400,000 tons. I do not see that there can be any difficulty about that.
I would say, weight for weight, one ought to pay the same number of bread units for oatmeal as for wheat or flour or the products of flour. But if for the moment the hon. Lady finds that the supply position is troublesome, I would not personally take any exception to the scales being weighted against oatmeal for the time being until she changes the policy of the Department and gets more oats into the mill and more oatmeal into the shop. Ultimately, I hope that oatmeal will be able to be taken off again. It is folly not to develop the supply of oatmeal to the utmost that our manufacturing capacity will allow—sheer folly, if only from the point of view of saving dollars. If, as I believe, oatmeal and flour are largely interchangeable, why should we have to pay dollars for flour or wheat when there are people who are only too glad to forgo their wheat and eat oats instead?
I believe there are many people, particularly as bread is not now as palatable as it used to be, who would like to make


that exchange today. There are far more who could be encouraged to make it tomorrow and I believe, far from this policy of seeking to discourage the use of oatmeal, the whole resources of the Department ought to be devoted to increasing the supply of oats to the miller and increasing the capacity of the output of the mills and the demand of oatmeal in this country. It is good for people. It saves dollars, and I am sure that at the end of the day the Ministry would find that it is the right policy. Unless the hon. Lady can give us some more assurances than she has given us, we cannot let matters remain where they are.
Can the hon. Lady even assure us that she is now going to take every step within the power of her Department to attract oats into the mill? Can she assure us of that? Can she assure us, secondly, that as soon as there is a reasonable flow, anything like last year's flow of oatmeal out of the mills, we will then transfer to bread units? I think it would be better not to have any points at all, but if that is too difficult all at once, then let us have an exchange of bread units for points. I think that is unnecessary, but I am not going to lay down a principle of

administration in the hon. Lady's Department, because we have only a bird's-eye view.

Will the hon. Lady undertake to take the most active steps to increase this 100,000 tons, and will she undertake, as soon as those steps are successful to allow a switch over of one kind or another from bread units to points? If she could do this I would be prepared to advise my hon. Friends not to press this Motion, because I feel that assurances given by her would be followed by action, and, I think, successful action. If not, then I am bound to say that we regard the conduct of the Government in this matter as so unsatisfactory, and unsympathetic to the needs of the people, that we shall be bound to go into the Lobby.

Several HON. MEMBERS rose.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord of the Treasury): Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 60.

Pearson, A.
Skeffington, A. M
Wadsworth, G.


Peart, T. F.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Popplewell, E.
Snow, J. W.
Watson, W. M.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Solley, L. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Price, M. Philips
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pritt, D. N.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Proctor, W. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pryde, D. J
Stamford, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wilkes, L.


Randall, H. E
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Ranger, J.
Swingler, S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Rankin, J.
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Robens, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willis, E.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Woodburn, A.


Royle, C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woods, G. S.


Sargood, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wyatt, W.


Scollan, T.
Tiffany, S.
Yates, V. F.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Timmons, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Titterington, M. F.
Zilliacus, K.


Sharp, Granville
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Grimston, R. V.
Scott, Lord W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Beechman, N. A.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Boothby, R.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spence, H. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Carson, E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Channon, H.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


De la Bère, R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Drayson, G. B.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Duthie, W. S.
Nicholson, G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, R. Hon. Walter
Odey, G. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fox, Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Gage, C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Question put accordingly,
That the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1947 (Amendment No. 4) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 2586), dated 3rd December

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[11.56 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Scott, Lord W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Boothby, R.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Carson, E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Channon, H.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Teeling, William


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


De la Bère, R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Nicholson, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Odey, G. W.
York, C.


Fox, Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Gage, C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Mr. Spence and Mr. Duthie.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

1947, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 191.

NOES.


Acland, Sir R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Robens, A.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
House, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Alpass, J. H.
Hoy, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Anderson, A, (Motherwell)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Royle, C.


Austin, H. Lewis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sargood, R.


Barton, C.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Scollan, T.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Beswick, F.
Janner, B.
Shaokleton, E. A. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Sharp, Granville


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, D T. (Hartlepool)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Boardman, H
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Skeffington, A. M.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Keenan, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exoh'ge)
Kendall, W. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Kinley, J.
Snow, J. W.


Brown, T. J. Ince)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Solley, L. J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Callaghan, James
Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Carmichael, James
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stamford, W.


Coldrick, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stokes, R. R.


Collindridge, F.
Longden, F.
Stross, Dr. B.


Collins, V. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Summersklll, Dr. Edith


Comyns, Dr. L.
McGhee, H. G
Swingler, S.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
McGovern, J.
Symonds, A L.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
McKinlay, A. S
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfiold)


Corlett, Dr. J.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Bannet)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)


Delargy, H. J.
Medland, H. M.
Tiffany, S.


Dodds, N. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Timmons, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Titterington, M. F.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Dye, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wadsworth, G.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Warbey, W. N.


Ewart, R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Watson, W. M.


Fairhurst, F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Farthing, W. J.
Orbach, M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Paget, R. T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Forman, J. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilkes, L.


Gibson, C. W.
Parker, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Gilzean, A.
Pearson, A
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Goodrich, H. E.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Popplewell, E.
Willis, E.


Grierson, E.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Price, M. Philips
Woodburn, A.


Gunter, R. J
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, G. S.


Guy, W. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, W.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Randall, H. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Herbison, Miss M.
Ranger, J.



Hewiuon, Capt. M
Rankin, J
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hobson, C. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.


Holman, P.
Rhodes, H.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Solley: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the state of our public service vehicles. I hope to be able to put before the House facts which will establish that in many cases

omnibuses and coaches are put upon the road in unroadworthy condition, to the danger of the public, and that in many cases omnibus schedules are such that they neither comply with the requirements of the public nor are capable of fulfilment because there are not sufficient omnibuses to run the services according to schedule. Before the war, the total fleet of buses and coaches was approximately 50,000. Of this number, an appreciable propor-


tion was due for scrapping, but with the intervention of the war years, that proportion which should have been scrapped before the war was not scrapped. The position today is that about 25,000 vehicles are urgently in need of replacement, and many of those vehicles have in fact run far beyond their normal life and are a danger to the public and to the drivers. The figure I have given of 25,000 vehicles in need of replacement takes no account of the additional requirements of the public as a result of postwar industrial needs and the growth of housing estates in different parts of the country.
For example, in my constituency, I have tried to get extra buses for South Ockenden, for the Uplands Estate, and on special occasions for the transport of Roman Catholic children to Roman Catholic schools some distance from their homes. In each of these instances I have come up against the same difficulty, namely, that there are not sufficient public service vehicles to fulfil the requirements of my constituency.
It is interesting to see how this problem is being met by the Government. In 1947, the Government set a target of 8,000 new vehicles, and also proposed a considerable easement in the supply of spare parts. As I shall tell the House in a moment, this figure of 8,000 has been reduced by 50 per cent.; but even on the basis of 8,000, taking into account the fact that buses continue to become obsolete, it would probably take some four or five years to replace the 25,000 buses which are today in a dangerous condition—and that is without taking into account the fact that new vehicles are required for new services. But as I have said, with the Government's new plans, which are the result of our export drive, the production of new buses has been set at the figure of 4,000 a year. Therefore, I say to the House—and I have information from responsible quarters for saying this—that the outlook for the next two years is extremely grave, and the result of this policy may be disastrous in connection with the public vehicles transport system of this country.
So far I have dealt with the national position. Let me now say a few words about the position of the London Passenger Transport Board. According to

my information, which I hope my hon. Friend will correct if it is wrong in any material particular, the London Passenger Transport Board has a bus and coach fleet of some 7,000, which is roughly one-seventh of the entire national fleet. Hon. Members may be interested to know that whereas the normal life of a bus is from eight to ten years, of the London Passenger Transport Board's fleet more than one-half has exceeded its normal economic life, and one-third is more than 15 years old; that is to say, one-third of the buses running along the streets of London, are over 15 years old.
What can the L.P.T.B. do about this? They are, by a process of cannibalism, using some buses as a source of spare parts for, the purpose of making other buses serviceable. That is done by the maintenance workers, but their good work must fail in the light of the magnitude of this problem. The L.P.T.B. have the temporary assistance at the present time of approximately 350 single-decker coaches, but that assistance, I am given to understand, will cease next March and the problem then will become even greater. I understand that at the beginning of last year the L.P.T.B., out of the national allocation of 8,000 new vehicles, ordered some 3,000; but very few were delivered by the middle of this ear, and I hope that my hon. Friend he Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me how many will be delivered by the end of this year. In the light of the 50 per cent. cut nationally in new buses, the programme of the L.P.T.B. will be taken far below the danger point.
Having given a picture of the position in London, might I say that, so far as the provinces are concerned, the position is equally bad, or even worse. During this winter, many vehicles will be on the roads in a condition which is a threat to the public safety. I would like for a few moments to speak of conditions as they are in my own constituency. They were brought to my attention as a result of events at Grays. I heard that an unofficial strike had taken place on 5th November among members of the Transport and General Workers' Union branch, and I was asked to try to influence the men to return to work. I went to see them, because it was my duty, but during my inquiries, I discovered that the drivers concerned had gone on strike because they


considered that the single-decker Leyland buses in operation in the Grays area were such a danger to the public by virtue of their unroadworthiness and their general condition that it was a public disservice to take them out.
I discovered that these buses were approximately 21 years old, and I found that as long ago as 1944 protests were made to the appropriate quarters urging that these buses should be taken off the road. The vehicles had no independent braking system and frequently accidents occurred which made the buses more unroadworthy. As to the steering, I was told something of which we should take serious note. The major fault with the steering is that, when applying the brakes, the driver is at his wits' end to know which way the vehicle is going to pull. I emphasise that this is no third hand evidence, but direct evidence from the unfortunate drivers themselves. I know of one case—and this was not a single but a double-decker bus—in which it was discovered that one of the wheels was fastened to the chassis by one nut only. The others had worked loose because of the worn condition of the wheel. I was further told that when these vehicles are tested by the public examiner, they are tested empty, and furthermore, the examiner does not drive the vehicle himself. The bus is driven by a garage fitter. It is the general opinion that the tests are quite inadequate.
I would like to cite a further specific example as an instance of the dangerous condition in which these vehicles are at present. I am told that this is typical of the position in the country, leaving out London, where conditions are perhaps somewhat better. In one case, vehicle No. 2796 was tested, after it had been used on the roads of Essex. Travelling at 15 miles an hour, when the brakes were applied there was a 25-feet skid to the offside, and at 20 miles an hour, there was a skid of 45 feet, also to the offside.
Another vehicle, No. 3059, on the same day was tested likewise, and at 20 miles per hour there was a 30-ft. skid to the offside of the vehicle. Had the vehicle been full of passengers, and had there been a crash, the result might have been disastrous. I was told by the men concerned after the strike had terminated—and I hope in part it was because of my efforts—that the management undertook

not to use these Leyland vehicles unless it was absolutely necessary. I think that is, in itself, sufficient commentary on the position.
While on the question of public service vehicle examination, I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary the following suggestions: that buses should be tested loaded and not empty; that the examiner himself should drive the vehicle and not sit behind the driver, because I am told no expert could say what the steering was like merely by sitting in the omnibus, but that he himself ought to drive the omnibus. My third suggestion is that examiners should have the power to stop an omnibus en route, and there and then examine it in the same way as examiners have the right to stop heavy vehicles and ascertain whether those vehicles are roadworthy. Only in that way will a fair and independent examination be procured. I am told it is not good enough for an examiner to telephone he is going to carry out an examination of an omnibus. Far too often that omnibus is put into as good a condition as possible in the short time available, and in the circumstances the test is not a fair one.
I have referred to the position nationally; to the position as far as London is concerned with respect to the L.P.T.B.; and the position in the provinces, with particular reference to my own constituency. I would put the following conclusions before the Parliamentary Secretary for his serious consideration. The production drive is seriously hampered by the present inadequate road passenger transport services. It is not sufficient to consider the replacement of the present dilapidated and non-roadworthy vehicles; over and above that problem it is necessary to have increased transport services. Clearly this problem has been enhanced by the recent rail fare increases and the withdrawal of the basic petrol allowance, which intensified the strain upon the public vehicles.
If allocations for new vehicles and spare parts are to be made, I suggest that they be made on the basis of priority for essential industries. I know the central problem involved in all this is the question of obtaining new vehicles and new spare parts, and this conflicts directly with our desire to export as many cars, omnibuses and spare parts as possible. I venture to say that no matter how im-


portant our export drive is, far more important is the safety of the public and the necessity to have an, adequate public transport service in our own country. If this is a question of choosing between diminishing the export of motor vehicles and of cutting some of our expenditure in manpower in the Armed Services and our capital expenditure on foreign commitments, I suggest to the Government that the latter course is preferable, for we should consider our own needs at home. I know that this does not come within the departmental jurisdiction of my hon. Friend, but I hope he will be able to take this up with his colleagues in the Cabinet and see that the public is given a square deal as far as-the public transport system of this country is concerned.

12.20 a.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): I want to intervene for one moment to support everything that the hon. Member has said. He has put the case very fully and very ably. I am supporting him because I am interested in one of the biggest suppliers of these buses. I can speak from the manufacturers' point of view and say how very serious is the position with which we are faced. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has spoken of the public need and how operators must have these buses. The manufacturers can produce them, and it is very serious indeed for the manufacturers that the output for this forthcoming year, which could be of the order of some 12,000 buses, is now cut to one-half or to one-third.
These needs were being rapidly met, but the position will deteriorate very greatly, because if a switch is made by manufacturers to exports, there will be a dislocation of production for the home market. I speak, in particular, with relation to the London Passenger Transport Board whose contracts will be interfered with. That means that these buses which are so urgently needed, will come off the production line even more slowly. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to increase the allocation of chassis because that is all that is needed. Manufacturers in this country export very few of the buses overseas. It is not an exportable product. What is needed is just an extra two or three thousand allocations for chassis for home needs rather than for export if these urgent and very

pressing needs of the public of this country are to be met. If the Minister can give some satisfactory answer in that direction, I think many of the points made by the hon. Member opposite will be met.

12.23 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) put his case with vigour and emphasis, but, unfortunately, it was grossly exaggerated. It would be extremely improper if I were not to deny emphatically that there are, if I may quote his words, in many cases buses put on the roads not in a roadworthy condition that are a danger to the public. That simply is not true because—I think that members of the public should be reassured on this matter—I have taken considerable pains to reassure myself before coming down to the House tonight in order to answer this Debate.
I would like to illustrate what I have to say by explaining the procedure that has to take place before a bus goes on to the road. First, it has to have what is called a certificate of fitness. Now, the conditions of fitness are laid down in Statutory Rules and Orders No. 514, of 1941, and if hon. Members care to run through the 15 pages of that order, they will see the extremely onerous nature of the tests that have to be passed by any public service vehicle before it gets this condition of fitness certificate, which lasts for a period of five years. It is an extremely detailed series of tests that has to be gone through, and which the vehicle has to pass before it can go out on the road, as a matter of safeguarding the public.
In addition, there are, through the medium of the licensing authorities in the II regions of the country, something like 20 members of my right hon. Friend's staff who act as certifying officers, and rather over 200 vehicle examiners. They are based at strategical points throughout the country and their main job is to be constantly examining public service vehicles and heavy goods vehicles, in order to test that they are not falling below the conditions laid down and required in the certificate.
It is quite true that during the war there was a considerable decline in the


number examined, but since January, out of a total fleet of something of the order of 59,000, over 33,000 vehicles have been examined by the examiners of the Ministry of Transport. Something like 56 per cent. of the total fleet has been examined. Of the number examined, 3½ per cent. have been found to have a defect which brings them below the conditions in the certificate, and service on the road has been immediately suspended until they got back to that standard again. After six years of war, it is a tribute to the high standard of maintenance that has been kept up by operators throughout the country that the percentage of vehicles falling below the very stiff and onerous standards required should be as low as 3½ per cent. It is the Ministry's aim to get back to 100 per cent. examination every year, and to examine every vehicle at least once a year, and they have made a pretty good start. Sixty per cent., I should think, will have been examined by the end of this year.
There is a very great guarantee of safety to the public in this examination, which is continuously undertaken. The members of the staff of vehicle examiners are constantly going around to the garages and making sure that these vehicles meet the standard that is required. I would like to quote one thing that has been said by the chief mechanical engineer of the London Passenger Transport Board, Mr. A. A. M. Durrant. He has put out a very interesting little pamphlet about the achievements of the L.P.T.B., the difficulties they have to face, and the improvisation they have to undertake to keep their fleet going. I would particularly ask the House to note these two sentences,
The only exception in the make-do-and-mend policy was on safety. Even at the most difficult times we never relaxed our high standards of road safety.
I think it is important that that should be put on the records. It stands in contradiction to the statement that buses on the roads at the moment are a danger to the public. I have consulted with the chief mechanical engineer today, and he assures me that not one vehicle has been involved in an accident in the last 12 months because it has been unsafe mechanically or because of a mechanical breakdown. There have been accidents, of course—people knocked down, and so forth—but in the fleet of 7,000 not one has been involved in an accident because

of a mechanical defect. That does not really sound as if there are buses on the road that are a danger to the public. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that there were 25,000 vehicles in need of replacement——

Mr. Solley: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether my allegations about the Eastern National Omnibus Company——

Mr. Callaghan: On the question of the number in need of replacement, there are 25,000 vehicles over the age of ten years. Therefore, on the prewar basis, they need replacement and should be replaced. In point of fact, operators, maintenance men, drivers and conductors, have really been so successful in their jobs that the overall length of life since the war of the public service vehicle is no longer reckoned at 10 years, and they are keeping the buses on the job more than 10 years; but I agree that we ought to get back to the normal prewar period of 10 years which was regarded as the proper life of a public service vehicle. It would, however, be untrue to suggest that the buses on the road are unsafe. Seventeen per cent. of the present bus fleet of nearly 60,000 are less than two years old, and 50 per cent. are over 10 years old. It is this 50 per cent. that constitutes the problem of maintenance, and creates the need for spares to which we at the Ministry of Transport, in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply, are giving considerable attention.
The intake of buses during 1948 is likely to be of the order of 6,000. I agree that that is inadequate. One of the problems constantly confronting me at the Ministry is the requests for new services; but now the fleet is about 60,000, as against 52,000 before the war. Members of the public are demanding facilities—and quite rightly so—that they never had before the war. I agree it is a good thing, and that we should do all we can to satisfy those requests. We are trying to deal with a new problem brought about by people who have called for adequate bus services in country areas. That is a problem facing us.
My understanding of the Grays position is that there were four Leyland "Lion" buses concerned. As soon as we had news of the strike, the examining and certifying officers examined the buses, and


found that two were roadworthy, one needed overhaul, and one needed the brakes adjusted. There is really no need for a strike in these matters. If the union branch or the men are dissatisfied with the state of repair of the buses, clearly it is their public duty to say so. If the union branch goes to the licensing authority and asks them for an examination of those vehicles, the vehicles will be examined within a matter of days, if not hours. There is no reason for men to feel that they have to prove their point by refusing to take the vehicles out and striking. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his action in this matter, and I put this point to him if he is called in again for consultation. I will bear in mind the other points he made—testing the bus loaded, with the examiner driving and so on—but he will not expect me to give him an answer now.
It is true, of course, that transport is hampered by inadequate services. Certainly we would like more than 6,000 buses next year, except for the needs for the export drive. This is not the time to launch into a discussion of the merits of the export drive or a transport drive, but we are going on with the job. The number of buses we shall be placing on the roads in 1948 compares favourably with any other year before the war In the years 1933 to 1936, the average was 3,400, in the years 1936 to 1939 the average was 5,000, and now it is 6,000.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.